FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Denny's litigation history
What Denny's disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document. Item 3 lists the material legal actions a franchisor must report; Item 4 covers bankruptcy. This is the franchisor's own disclosure, not a court record, and not legal advice.
Items 3 (litigation) & 4 (bankruptcy) at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 3
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- None stated
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- Disclosed · an officer
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2025
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
Three disclosed cases: (1) 50 East Thousand Oaks, LLC v. Denny's, Inc. - breach of contract/misrepresentation over a landlord franchise agreement, settled for $115,000; (2) Rogers Family Foods, LLC v. DFO, LLC - dispute over royalty/brand building fees under an expired franchise agreement, resolved via successor agreement, dismissed with prejudice; (3) RWDT Foods, Inc. v. DFO, LLC and Denny's, Inc. - ongoing breach of contract/fraud/interference litigation, discovery ongoing as of the disclosure date.
Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
RWDT FOODS, INC. v DFO, LLC AND DENNY’S, INC.
pendingfiled 2022-08-30 · Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, South Carolina · 2022-CP-1004030
“… (Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County, South Carolina, Case No. 2022-CP-1004030) On August 30, 2022, RWDT, Inc. filed a complaint against DFO, LLC and Denny’s, Inc. (collec- tively, “Denny’s”)”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Concluded (1)
Rogers Family Foods, LLC v DFO, LLC
dismissedBrought by a franchisee · filed 2019-06-05 · United States District Court, District of Minnesota · 19-CV-1476
“Case No. 19-CV-1476) On June 5, 2019, Rogers Family Foods, LLC (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against DFO, LLC (De- fendant) in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota alleging continued royalty and brand building fees under Plaintiff’s expired franchise agreement instead of the increased rates under a new successor franchise agreement.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties reached an agreement, and a successor franchise agreement was signed on January 20, 2021. Each party assumed its own costs, expenses, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice filed January 21, 2021. Order for Dismissal with Prejudice granted January 22, 2021.”
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (1)
50 East Thousand Oaks, LLC v Denny’s, Inc.
settledDenny’s, Inc. (DI) · filed 2014-10-24 · Superior Court of California, County of Ventura · 56-2014-00456852-CU-CO-VTA
“… (Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, Case No. 56-2014-00456852-CU-CO-VTA) On October 24, 2014, 50 East Thousand Oaks, LLC (Plaintiff), filed a complaint against Denny’s, Inc. in the Ventura County Superior Court alleging breach of contract and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Plaintiff, as owner of property underlying a company restaurant that has since closed, was the successor in interest to an agreement with our affiliate DI, which would allow the landlord to operate a Denny's franchise at the location under certain conditions.”
Item 3 lists the litigation the franchisor must disclose; a matter against a parent, an affiliate or a named officer is not a matter against the franchisor, and pending claims are allegations, not findings.
Disclosed in the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 4: bankruptcy
One proceeding was filed in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code naming Balbair Pal as joint debtor. An order of discharge was granted on June 12, 2020, discharging most debts (Case No. 2-15-bk-13711BKM).
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Active litigation involving breach of contract and royalty disputes suggests franchisor relationship issues
The verdict grade is FranchiseVerdict's editorial assessment across SBA loan performance, unit growth, revenue and disclosure signals. It is not investment advice.
Before you weigh a lawsuit
How to read Item 3
A franchisor must disclose pending actions and any material civil action involving the franchise relationship, plus convictions or civil judgments for fraud, unfair or deceptive practices, or franchise-law violations, going back ten years. A case the franchisor brought against a franchisee counts too. Item 3 does not include every dispute: settled claims below the materiality line and matters resolved in private arbitration can be absent.
Questions worth asking current and former franchisees, using the contact list in Item 20:
- Were you, or anyone you know in the system, party to a dispute with the franchisor?
- Was it resolved by settlement, arbitration or a court, and on what terms?
- Has the number of disputes gone up or down since you signed?