FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing
Dogtopia litigation history
What Dogtopia disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2026 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
- 2
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases
- None stated
- Bankruptcy (Item 4)
- None
- Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer
- Filing year
- 2026
- Disclosures cover the prior ten years
Extracted from the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document
Item 3: litigation
(1) HotBox Enterprises, LLC v. Jamie Weeks, et al. (consolidated with Weeks v. Mortarotti/Samios/Cox) - franchisor's affiliated entity sued a former Dogtopia area developer/HotBox brand founder for breach of contract, unfair competition and IP misuse after he refused to sign franchise agreements and rebranded to a competing brand; settled Feb 2022 via $2.7M promissory note and asset transfer. (2) Kimberly Hamm v. Dogtopia Enterprises, LLC and Neil Gill (filed May 2024) - former VP of Operations sued over forfeited Long-Term Incentive Plan participation units, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and related claims; motion to dismiss pending.
Item 3 (litigation) · 2 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
Kimberly Hamm v. Dogtopia Enterprises, LLC and Neil Gill
pendingfiled 2024-05-17 · Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior Court · CV2024-012316
“… Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior Court Case No. CV2024-012316 (filed May 17, 2024) On May 17, 2024, Kimberly Hamm (“Hamm”), our former Vice President of Operations, filed a lawsuit against us and our President/CEO, Neil Gill, in Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior Court.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “We deny all liability and intend to vigorously defend against Hamm’s claims. The court has issued an order denying Hamm’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (page 13)
Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor
Concluded (1)
HotBox Enterprises, LLC v. Jamie Weeks, et al.
settledBrought against a franchisee · HotBox Enterprises, LLC (and HotBox Franchisor, LLC) - a sister brand of the franchisor whose assets, equity, ownership and trademarks were transferred to the defendant under the settlement; Item 1's · filed 2020-06-01 · Cal. Super. Ct. - California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 20GDCV00469
“On June 1, 2020, HotBox Enterprises (“Plaintiff”) filed a civil action in California Superior Court (Los Angeles County) (Case No. 20GDCV00469) against Jamie Weeks and related entities (“Defendant”) alleging that Defendant engaged in unfair business practices”Page 11 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On February 22, 2022, the parties executed a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release of All Claims wherein Defendant agreed to issue a promissory note in the sum of $2,700,000” (page 12)
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
Jamie Weeks v. Jessica Mortarotti, Nicholas Alexander Samios & Zachary Cox
settledBrought by a franchisee · names an officer, not the company · Nicholas Alexander Samios - the filing says the plaintiff's owners include "our Chief Growth Officer, Alex Samios" - together with Jessica Mortarotti and Zachary Cox · filed 2020-06-01 · Cal. Super. Ct. - California Superior Court, Los Angeles County · 20STCV20681
“On June 1, 2020, Defendant filed a separate lawsuit in the same court against Plaintiff and its owners, including our Chief Growth Officer, Alex Samios (Case No. 20STCV20681).”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On January 26, 2021, both cases were consolidated under HotBox Enterprises, LLC v. Jamie Weeks, et al. (Case No. 20GDCV00469).”
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.
One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 2 Item 3 discloses agree.
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.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- Active litigation involving area developer (breach of contract) and former VP (incentive plan dispute) suggests operational and governance 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?