FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Fit Body Boot Camp litigation history

What Fit Body Boot Camp 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 & 4 at a glance

What the filing discloses

Cases disclosed: 4; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest disclosed settlement: $4K; As stated in Item 3

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

One regulatory action: Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation Consent Order (2016) re unregistered franchise sale; resolved with $4,000 penalty and rescission offer; matter dismissed.

Item 3 · 4 matters disclosed · 2 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (2)

Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. v. Andria Lopez Espinoza and YL Hiit, LLC Yorba Linda/Andrea Espinoza/Lopez
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-05 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 5:53-cv-02036
“Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. v. Andria Lopez Espinoza and YL Hiit, LLC Yorba Linda/Andrea Espinoza/Lopez (Case No. 5:53-cv-02036) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 5, 2025. We sued a franchisee and its guarantors for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution; misappropriation of trade secrets”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“The defendants failed to file a responsive pleading and a motion for default judgment remains pending as of the issuance date of this Disclosure Document.”
Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. v. Gina Antonucci and P2T Fitness, Inc.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-09-02 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 5:25-cv-02542
“Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. v. Gina Antonucci and P2T Fitness, Inc. (Case No. 5:25-cv-02542) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 2, 2025.We sued a franchisee and its guarantor for misappropriation of trade secrets”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“This matter remains pending as of the issuance date of this Disclosure Document. O”

Concluded (2)

Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. v. Michael Aguirre, Virginia Aguirre, Hiit Factory, Inc., Miguel Torres, Bonnie Torres, and Ludus Holdings
settled
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-05 · United States District Court for the Central District of California · 2:25-cv-07234
“Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. v. Michael Aguirre, Virginia Aguirre, Hiit Factory, Inc., Miguel Torres, Bonnie Torres, and Ludus Holdings (Case No. 2:25-cv-07234) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 5, 2025. We sued a franchisee and its guarantors for trademark infringement”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“Defendants did not allege any counterclaims. This matter has since settled and the case has been dismissed.”
Consent Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Actions In the Matter of Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. Respondent
dismissed
Government or regulatory action · Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation ("RIDBR") · File No. FR.9900509
“On September 6, 2016, the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation (“RIDBR”) issued a Consent Order Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Actions In the Matter of Fit Body Boot Camp, Inc. Respondent (a regulatory action brought by the RIDBR, File No. FR.9900509)”Page 13 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome:“we made a rescission offer to one Rhode Island Fit Body Boot Camp franchisee, agreed not to violate the Rhode Island Retail Franchising Act in the future and paid to the RIDBR $4,000 in monetary penalties.”

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

Three active 2025 lawsuits by franchisor against former franchisees suggest operational/enforcement conflicts and potential system instability

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?

Back to the Fit Body Boot Camp verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls