FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

IHOP litigation history

What IHOP 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: 26; 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: 2026; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Item 3 (litigation) · 26 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

IHOP Restaurants LLC, et al. v. C. Wayne Court, et al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC, et al. · filed 2026 · American Arbitration Association · 01-25-0004-8662
“… American Arbitration Association, Case No. 01-25-0004-8662. On September 26, 2026, IHOP initiated arbitration against the Franchisees to recover unpaid royalties, advertising fees, repair costs, and other amounts arising from the Franchisees’ unauthorized closure or abandonment of IHOP restaurants and related past-due obligations. The matter”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (14)

IHOP Leasing LLC v. 1930, LLC
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Leasing LLC · filed 2025 · Dist. Ct., East Baton Rouge Parish · C759-101, Sec. 32
“… Case No. C759-101, Sec. 32 (Dist. Ct., East Baton Rouge Parish, Feb. 11, 2025); IHOP Leasing LLC, 1471, L.C., Case No. C175223, Sec. C (Dist. Ct., Bossier Parish, Feb. 11, 2025). On February 11, 2025, and February 13, 2025, IHOP Leasing LLC filed three separate eviction actions in state court against franchisees Pahop LLC, 1930 LLC, and 1471 L.C., after the”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Upon each franchisees’ turnover of the restaurants on February 20, 2025, IHOP Leasing LLC dismissed each action without prejudice.”
IHOP Leasing LLC v. PAHOP, LLC
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Leasing LLC · filed 2025 · Justice Ct., Jefferson Cty., Texas · 25JP2CV0119
“… Case No. 25JP2CV0119 (Justice Ct., Jefferson Cty., Texas Feb. 13, 2025); IHOP Leasing LLC v. 1930, LLC, Case No. C759-101, Sec. 32 (Dist. Ct., East Baton Rouge Parish, Feb. 11, 2025); IHOP Leasing LLC, 1471, L.C., Case No. C175223, Sec. C (Dist. Ct., Bossier Parish, Feb. 11, 2025). On February 11, 2025, and February 13, 2025, IHOP Leasing LLC filed three separate”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Upon each franchisees’ turnover of the restaurants on February 20, 2025, IHOP Leasing LLC dismissed each action without prejudice.”
IHOP Leasing LLC, 1471, L.C.
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Leasing LLC · filed 2025 · Dist. Ct., Bossier Parish · C175223, Sec. C
“… Case No. C175223, Sec. C (Dist. Ct., Bossier Parish, Feb. 11, 2025). On February 11, 2025, and February 13, 2025, IHOP Leasing LLC filed three separate eviction actions in state court against franchisees Pahop LLC, 1930 LLC, and 1471 L.C., after the expiration of their respective franchise agreements and subleases and subsequent failure to turn over the restaurants.”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Upon each franchisees’ turnover of the restaurants on February 20, 2025, IHOP Leasing LLC dismissed each action without prejudice.”
IHOP Restaurants LLC et al. v. Pyramid Operating Group, Inc.
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC et al. · filed 2025 · E.D. Penn. · 2:25-cv-04053-JS
“… Civil Case No.: 2:25-cv- 04053-JS (E.D. Penn.). In July 2025, IHOP sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the franchisee for breach of the franchise agreement and trademark infringement in violation of the Lanham Act. On August 1, 2025, the court granted IHOP's temporary restraining order. On Dec. 24,”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
IHOP Restaurants LLC v 1471, L.C.
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC · filed 2025-02-10 · W.D. La. · 5:25-cv-00165-JE-MLH
“… Case No. 5:25-cv-00165-JE-MLH (W.D. La. Feb 10, 2025); IHOP Restaurants LLC v. 1930 LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00124-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La. Feb. 10, 2025). On February 10, 2025, IHOP Restaurants LLC filed three separate temporary restraining order actions in federal district court against franchisees Pahop LLC, 1930 LLC, and 1471 L.C., after the expiration of their”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Upon each franchisees’ turnover of the restaurants on February 20, 2025, IHOP Restaurants LLC dismissed each action without prejudice.”
IHOP Restaurants LLC v PAHOP, LLC
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC · filed 2025-02-10 · E.D. Tex. · 4:25-cv-00125-SDJ
“… Case No. 4:25-cv-00125-SDJ (E.D. Tex. Feb 10, 2025); IHOP Restaurants LLC v 1471, L.C., Case No. 5:25-cv-00165-JE-MLH (W.D. La. Feb 10, 2025); IHOP Restaurants LLC v. 1930 LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00124-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La. Feb. 10, 2025). On February 10, 2025, IHOP Restaurants LLC filed three separate temporary restraining order actions in federal district court”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Upon each franchisees’ turnover of the restaurants on February 20, 2025, IHOP Restaurants LLC dismissed each action without prejudice.”
IHOP Restaurants LLC v. 1930 LLC
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC · filed 2025 · M.D. La. · 3:25-cv-00124-SDD-SDJ
“… Case No. 3:25-cv-00124-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La. Feb. 10, 2025). On February 10, 2025, IHOP Restaurants LLC filed three separate temporary restraining order actions in federal district court against franchisees Pahop LLC, 1930 LLC, and 1471 L.C., after the expiration of their respective franchise agreements and subleases and subsequent failure to turn over the”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Upon each franchisees’ turnover of the restaurants on February 20, 2025, IHOP Restaurants LLC dismissed each action without prejudice.”
IHOP Restaurants LLC v. 1385-Tyler, Inc. and Meredith Elston
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC · filed 2020-02-25 · United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas · CV 20-cv-00099-JDK
“… (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas), Case No. CV 20-cv-00099-JDK. After providing franchisee with notice that IHOP did not intend to extend the expiration date of his franchise agreement and requesting that he turn-over the restaurant by the February 23, 2020 expiration date, IHOP commenced this action on February”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties reached a resolution of this matter and IHOP voluntarily dismissed the case on June 12, 2020.”
Himelda Mendez v. IHOP Restaurants LLC
settled
IHOP Restaurants LLC · filed 2019-10-25 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 1:19-cv-9854
“… (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York), Case No. 1:19-cv-9854. On October 25, 2019, Himelda Mendez filed a class action complaint against IHOP, alleging that IHOP failed to include Braille on its gift cards, in violation of the ADA and New York disability access laws. The matter settled for $7,000 and was dismissed on July 29,”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Irvine Food Corp. v. Dine Brands Global, Inc., et al.
judgment
Brought by a franchisee · Dine Brands Global, Inc. (with IHOP and its affiliates, the 'Dine Parties') · filed 2019-06-07 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · 19GDCV00749
“… (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles), Case No. 19GDCV00749. On June 7, 2019, former franchisee Richard Miano, sole owner of Irvine Food Corp., filed a complaint against Dine Brands, IHOP, and its affiliates (“Dine Parties”). The complaint alleges that the Dine Parties failed to successfully negotiate a lease”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On March 16, 2021, the arbitrators found in the Dine Parties’ favor on all claims. On April 23, 2021, the arbitrators awarded the Dine Parties $1,266,515.10 in costs and attorney’s fees.”
Crystal Williamson v. Brooklyn Hop 2 LLC, et al.
settled
DineEquity, Inc., IHOP, and its affiliates ('Dine Parties'), with franchisee Brooklyn Hop 2 LLC · filed 2018-10-09 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York · 1:18-cv-05615-AMD-SMG
“… (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York), Case No.1:18-cv-05615-AMD-SMG. On October 9, 2018, Crystal Williamson, a former employee of franchisee Brooklyn Hop 2 LLC, filed a class action complaint against the franchisee, DineEquity, Inc., IHOP, and its affiliates (“Dine Parties”). The complaint alleges Defendants violated”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 7, 2019, the parties reached a settlement in which Plaintiff received a payment of $9,500.00.”
Heartland Consumer Products, LLC, et al. v. DineEquity, Inc., et al.
settled
DineEquity, Inc. and its affiliates ('DineEquity') · filed 2017-04-03 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · 1:17-cv-01035-SEB-TAB
“… (United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana), Case No. 1:17-cv-01035-SEB-TAB. On April 3, 2017, Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC, the manufacturer of a sucralose-based sugar substitute branded as Splenda, filed suit against DineEquity, Inc. and its affiliates (“DineEquity”). The”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On September 26, 2018, the parties reached a settlement, wherein DineEquity agreed to allow the Plaintiff’s tabletop sweeteners to be the exclusive tabletop sweeteners in the system.”
IHOP Restaurants LLC, et al. v. Moeini Corporation
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · IHOP Restaurants LLC, et al. · filed 2017-12-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 17-cv-570
“… (United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama), Case No. 17-cv-570. After terminating the franchisee for multiple operational failures, IHOP commenced this action on December 29, 2017 to enforce its termination rights and to enjoin the franchisee from continuing to operate the restaurants. On February 7, 2018, the federal”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Azhar Chaudhry; ARS Restaurant, Inc.; and Lucky Star #5409, Inc. v. International House of Pancakes, LLC
dismissed
Brought by a franchisee · International House of Pancakes, LLC · filed 2015-04-21 · N.D. Ill. · 15-cv-3504
“… Civil Case No. 15-cv-3504 (N.D. Ill.) and In re Lucky #5409, Inc. and Azhar Chaudhry (United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois), Case No. 16-16264 (N.D. Ill.). After receiving notice for operational failures, on April 21, 2015, the franchisee sued IHOP alleging”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On August 26, 2015, the court granted IHOP’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the franchisee from using IHOP’s trademarks and dismissed the franchisee’s complaint. On September 2, 2015, the franchisee appealed the court’s orders to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit appeal was stayed upon franchisee’s filing of his bankruptcy case on May 13, 2016. Subsequently,”
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- In re Lucky #5409, Inc. and Azhar Chaudhry
  concluded
  names an affiliate · International House of Pancakes, LLC · filed 2016-05-13 · United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois · 16-16264
  “On May 13, 2016, franchisee Azhar Chaudhry and an affiliated entity, Lucky #5409, Inc., the owner and operator of one Restaurant located in Bridgeview, Illinois, voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. On December 28, 2017, the Restaurant was transferred to another franchisee with IHOP’s consent.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

This list shows 15 of the 26 matters Item 3 discloses; the rest are in the filing.

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 26 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.

Disclosed in the 2026 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 4: bankruptcy

bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware due to COVID-19-related business pressures. YogaWorks has its principal place of business at 2215 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405. 11 IHOP-TR FDD – 03/26

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Extensive litigation history including fraud, ADA compliance, and employment class actions suggests operational and compliance challenges

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 IHOP verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls