FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Famous Dave’s litigation history

What Famous Dave’s 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: 18; 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

Numerous historical (mostly 2012-2021, now concluded) disputes involving Famous Dave's and MTY-affiliated brands (Extreme Pita, Kahala, SweetFrog, Papa Murphy's, Wetzel's Pretzels, VI BrandCo) including franchisee misrepresentation/FIPA claims, breach of contract, trademark infringement post-termination continued use, and state franchise-registration consent orders (Maryland, Virginia, New York). Three new suits filed by Kahala Franchising against franchisees in FY2025 (breach of contract, trademark infringement). No bankruptcy required to be disclosed for Famous Dave's itself.

Item 3 (litigation) · 18 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

Desert Ribs, L.L.C., Famous Gracie, L.L.C., Famous Freddie, L.L.C., Famous George, L.L.C. and Famous Charlie, L.L.C. v. Famous Dave’s of America, Inc.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2016-03-14 · American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota · 01 16 0000 8549
“… American Arbitration Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Case No. 01 16 0000 8549.”Page 24 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “entered into a confidential settlement agreement and mutual release (the “Settlement Agreement”), dated August 22, 2016, with Famous Dave’s. The Settlement Agreement included the following material terms: (i) the territorial rights granted to Claimants in the Franchise Agreements were modified;”
Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, LLC; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.; SR El Centro FD, Inc., et al.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2015-07-24 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Central Division · BC589329
“Famous Dave’s of America, Inc. v. Allan Gantes; John Gantes; M Mart 1, LLC; Kurt Schneiter; Shoreline FD Investors, L.L.C.;”Page 25 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 29, 2018, the parties agreed to enter into a confidential settlement agreement and a mutual release of claims (the “El Centro Settlement Agreement”), which contained the following material terms: (i) SR Defendants received $75,000 towards the payment of their attorney’s fees contingent”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (12)

Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. v. Wetzel’s Pretzels, LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Wetzel’s Pretzels, L.L.C. · filed 2019-09-11 · American Arbitration Association (Los Angeles) · 01-19-0002-9326
“… Los Angeles, California; AAA Case No.01-19- 0002-9326. On or about July 19, 2017, we entered into a franchise agreement with Pretzelsdallas1, Inc. (then known as Triple Scoops, Inc.).”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Respondent/Counter Claimant paid Claimant/Counter Respondent the sum of $125,000. The matter was subsequently dismissed with prejudice.”
SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C., et al.
settled
Brought by the franchisor · SFF, L.L.C. (successor to SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C.) · filed 2016-08-29 · City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court · CL16-3927
“SFF, L.L.C. v. Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.; City of Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court; Case No. CL16-3927. On August 29, 2016, SFF, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff”) filed a lawsuit against three sweetFrog franchisee entities, Carmel Village Yogurt Company L.L.C.”Page 23 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. · filed 2015-02-17 · Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles · BC572565
“… Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Case No.: BC572565.”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On June 19, 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby Kahala repurchased Koho’s Area Developer territory for the sum of $75,000 and forgave the remaining damages owed in the amount of $130,000.” (page 23)
Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee
settled
Brought by a franchisee · The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc. (now MTY Franchising USA, Inc.) · filed 2015-06-22 · Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County · 15-2-15120-7
“Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., Balwant Bahia, and Paramjit Samra v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., EP Development, Inc., and Feisal Ramjee;”Page 22 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties entered into a settlement agreement on March 11, 2016, in which Defendants paid Plaintiffs the sum of $20,000.”
Rob & Bud’s Pizza, LLC v. Papa Murphy’s International, Inc. and Papa Murphy’s International, LLC
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International, LLC · filed 2015-04-17 · U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington · 5:15-cv-05090-TLB
“… United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 5:15-cv- 05090-TLB.”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
DTD Pizza LLC, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al.; Mitch and Kristen Brink, et al. v. Papa Murphy’s International LLC, et al. (consolidated)
settled
Brought by a franchisee · Papa Murphy’s International LLC · filed 2014 · Washington Superior Court, Clark County · 14-2-00904-0; 14-2-01743-3
“DTD Pizza LLC, Brian Watson, Alton Spears, LMP Enterprises LLC, Pizza Enterprises LLC, Alan and Denise Barnett, DOB Enterprises, Inc., Douglas and Lesia Billing, Rob & Bud's Pizza, Robert J. Dickerson Trust UA, Rob Dickerson, 4LM Enterprises, Inc., Jana and”Page 27 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Triune, LLC (Virginia Determination, Case No. SEC-2012-00027)
settled
Government or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (predecessor of BF Acquisition Holdings, L.L.C.) · filed 2012 · Virginia State Corporation Commission, Division of Securities and Retail Franchising · SEC-2012-00027
“State of Virginia Determination; Case Number SEC-2012-00027.”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “to pay Virginia the sum of $25,000 as a penalty and the sum of $5,000 to defray the Commission’s costs of investigation;” (page 31)
State of Maryland v. Triune, LLC (Maryland Determination, Case No. 2012-0073)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Triune, LLC (predecessor of BF Acquisition Holdings, L.L.C.) · filed 2012 · Office of the Attorney General of Maryland · 2012-0073
“State of Maryland Determination; Case Number 2012-0073. In February 2012, the State of Maryland alleged that during the period January 1, 2009 to November 26, 2009, Triune, LLC (“Triune”): (i) did not retain signed acknowledgements of receipt reflecting the dates that its Franchise Disclosure Document was delivered to certain Maryland residents and non-residents;”Page 30 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “pay the Office of the Attorney General the sum of $50,000 as a civil penalty; (iii) retain copies of all acknowledgments of receipt confirming dates that prospective Maryland franchisees received any Maryland Franchise Disclosure Documents;”
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2007-0194)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (predecessor to Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.) · filed 2007-09-12 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2007-0194
“In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2007-0194. On September 12, 2007, “MWF” entered into a Consent Order with the Maryland Commissioner resulting from MWF inadvertently entering into two”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2005-0651)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc. (predecessor to Kahala Franchising, L.L.C.) · filed 2005-11-11 · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2005-0651
“In the Matter of Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2005-0651. On November 11, 2005, Maui Wowi Franchising, Inc., the predecessor franchisor of the Maui Wowi brand (“MWF”), entered into a Consent Order with”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
New York Department of Law v. Blimpie Associates, Ltd. and Joseph Dornbush (consent judgment, 1992)
judgment
Government or regulatory action · Blimpie Associates, Ltd. (predecessor of a sister MTY brand) · filed 1992 · New York Department of Law
“In May 1992, Blimpie Associates, Ltd. (“Blimpie”) and Joseph Dornbush (formerly the President of Blimpie) (collectively “Respondents”) responded to a claim by the New York Department of Law that it had sold franchises during a period of time when Blimpie’s prospectus had not been updated by amendment.”Page 29 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “to pay the sum of $18,000 to the State of New York as an additional allowance. Respondents paid the $18,000 in May 1992 and executed the consent judgment on August 25, 1992.”
In the Matter of SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. f.k.a. Imagination Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sweet Frog
concluded
Government or regulatory action · SweetFrog Enterprises, L.L.C. (predecessor of affiliate SFF, L.L.C.) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2012-0055
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2012-0055.”Page 28 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Status not stated in the filing (3)

Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Byron Washington and Bram Berg
Brought by the franchisor · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1:25-cv-06392
“… United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Golden Enterprises, Inc.; DBH Associates, LP, Deseret Sales, Inc., et al.
Brought by the franchisor · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington · 2:25-cv-00426
“Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Golden Enterprises, Inc.; DBH Associates, LP, Deseret Sales, Inc., Randy Herzog, Laurie Herzog, Amy Wilson, Rob Wilson, Clare Hunter, Deobrah Hunter;”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. v. Mid Valley Foods, Inc., Candyce Dilbeck, Steve Hopkins, Gegory M. Hopkins
Brought by the franchisor · Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. · U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · 2:25-cv-04166-KML
“… United States District Court in and for the District of Arizona;”Page 31 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Concluded (1)

In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, LLC (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et al.)
settled
Brought by a third party · W. Craig Barber (our CEO) and Robert Langford · filed 2017-12-01 · U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware · 15-12406 (KG)
“In re: Restaurants Acquisition I, LLC (Giuliano vs. W. Craig Barber et. al. United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on December 2, 2015 (Case No. 15-12406 (KG)).”Page 26 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

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.

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?

Back to the Famous Dave’s verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls