El Pollo Loco litigation history

The franchisor

Concluded (4)

• El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. MIK Food, Inc., et al.

  judgment

  Brought against a franchisee · filed 2021-10-08 · United Stated District Court, Central District of California · 8:21-cv-01676-DOC

  “… (United Stated District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 8:21-cv-01676-DOC). On October 8, 2021, we initiated a lawsuit against MIK Food, Inc. and its owners, Imtiaz Malik and Sarfraz Tahir Malik, for their unauthorized use of the El Pollo Loco name, marks and system at their restaurant in Santa Barbara, California following the”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On December 21, 2021, the court approved of the parties’ stipulated judgment and permanent injunction that (i) identified us as the prevailing party in the action, (ii) permanently enjoined MIK Food, Inc., its owners and agents from using or displaying, in any manner, the El Pollo Loco name, marks, trade secrets or other intellectual property, and (iii) entitled us to an award of our reasonable”

• El Pollo Loco, Inc. v. EPL 3766, Inc.

  settled

  Brought against a franchisee · filed 2016-06-07 · San Bernardino Superior Court · CIVD1S608941

  “… San Bernardino Superior Court (Case No. CIVD1S608941) (the “San Bernardino Lawsuit”). On June 7, 2016, we filed this action against EPL 3766, Inc. (“EPL 3766”), the franchisee owned by the Bryman plaintiffs in the previously-disclosed Lancaster Lawsuit, for claim for breach of contract arising out of EPL”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Neither party paid any money to the other as part of this settlement. The court dismissed the San Bernardino Lawsuit on April 6, 2017 with prejudice.” (page 15)

• Janice P. Handlers-Bryman and Michael D. Bryman v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.

  settled

  Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-02-09 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · MC026045

  “… (Case No. MC026045) (the “Lancaster Lawsuit”) was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles on February 9, 2016. Plaintiffs brought claims for (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (ii) intentional interference with prospective business, and (iii) unfair business”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “on August 21, 2020, we reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the action for (i) our payment of $2.5 Million, and (ii) our agreement to include the court-ordered 0.5-mile protected territory language in existing and new free-standing or traditional in-line Franchised Restaurant in California opened within the next 5 years.”

• Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al

  settled

  filed 2014 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange · 30 2014 00707367 CU-OE-CXC

  “captioned Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30 2014 00707367 CU-OE-CXC) (the “Olvera Action”) on behalf of all hourly employees working at Franchisor Restaurants in California on and after April 10, 2010 alleging certain violations of California labor laws. The claims included failure to pay overtime compensation, provide meal periods and rest breaks, and provide”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “On January 24, 2019, we agreed to pay $16.3 Million to the more than 32,000 putative class members in the Olvera, Perez, Vega, and Gonzalez actions to settle all claims for the period from April 12, 2010 to April 1, 2019. The court approved the settlement on January 31, 2020.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (3)

• Diep v. Sather

  settled

  El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (EPLH) officers and directors, and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC · filed 2016 · Delaware Court of Chancery · 12760-VCL

  “On or about September 23, 2016, a second purported EPLH shareholder filed a derivative complaint on behalf of EPLH in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Diep v. Sather, (Case No. 12760-VCL) (“Diep Action”) against the same defendants named in the Galustyan Action. The complaint in the Diep Action asserted substantially the same claims as the Galustyan Action.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The court approved the settlement of $625,000, less plaintiffs’ fees of $156,250, on September 10, 2021, and dismissed all claims brought, or that could have been brought, against Settling Defendants.”

• Armen Galustyan v. Sather, et al.

  dismissed

  El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (EPLH) officers and directors, and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C. · filed 2015 · Delaware Court of Chancery · 11676-VCL

  “… (Case No. 11676-VCL) (“Galustyan Action”). The derivative complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to EPLH and were unjustly enriched when they sold shares of EPLH at artificially inflated prices due to alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding EPL’s comparable store sales in the second quarter of 2015.”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “The purported EPLH shareholder voluntarily dismissed the action on October 7, 2020.”

• Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.

  settled

  El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. (EPLH), officers, Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. · filed 2015-08-24 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 8:15-cv-01343

  “… (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv- 01710) was filed in the same court on October 22, 2015. Both lawsuits named as defendants EPLH, Stephen J. Sather, Laurance”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

  Outcome: “Following class certification on July 3, 2018, defendants agreed to settle the case by paying plaintiffs $20 Million. On June 23, 2020 an order granting distribution of funds was issued.”