FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Jersey Mike's litigation history

What Jersey Mike'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: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $150K; 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

2 concluded cases (WA AG no-poach clause settled for $150,000; Tsou gift-card class action settled for $25,000) and 1 pending class action (Brewer v. JMFS re: mobile app service fees, California consumer protection claims).

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

Litigation cases

The franchisor and its predecessor

Pending (1)

Justin Brewer v. Jersey Mike’s Franchise Systems, Inc. et al
pending
Jersey Mike’s Franchise Systems (“JMFS”) - former franchisor (predecessor) and indirect parent of the franchisor A Sub Above, LLC · filed 2026 · United States District Court, Central District of California · 5:26-cv-535-SSS
“… Case No. 5:26-cv-535-SSS (United States District Court, Central District of California, Feb. 6, 2026). On February 6, 2026, Justin Brewer (“Brewer”) filed a class action lawsuit against JMFS, purporting that JMFS violated the California”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (2)

Sam Tsou v. A Sub Above, LLC and Does 1-10
settled
filed 2025 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · 25STCV28811
“On September 29, 2025, Sam Tsou (“Tsou”) filed a class action lawsuit against Company, alleging that Company violated California Civil Code §1749.5 et seq., the California False Advertising Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law after Tsou’s request for cash redemption of an unused balance on a gift card had been denied at a franchised JERSEY MIKE’S Restaurant.”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Company denied all allegations, but to resolve the dispute without admitting any fault or liability, Company and Tsou, on an individual basis, entered into a Settlement Agreement on March 27, 2026, which required Company to pay Tsou $25,000 in exchange for a full release from Tsou and related parties.”
The State of Washington v. Jersey Mike’s Franchise Systems, Inc.; Auburn JM, LLC; BCG-Northwest, LLC, Berry Investment Group, Ltd.; Elsterly, LLC; FM Restaurants, Inc.; Food Adventures, Inc.; Golden Springs, LLC; JM Northtown, LLC; JM Puyallup, Inc.; JM Restaurants, Inc.; JM Silverdale, LLC; JM Spok
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Jersey Mike’s Franchise Systems (“JMFS”) - franchisor at the time (predecessor); now indirect parent of A Sub Above, LLC · filed 2018 · State of Washington King County Superior Court · 18-2-25822-7
“On October 15, 2018, the State of Washington, through its Attorney General, sued JMFS, and each of its franchisees owning restaurants located the State of Washington (“Washington Franchisees”), alleging that JMFS and Washington Franchisees violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act based on the former inclusion in legacy franchise agreements of a so-called ‘no-poach’ provision”Page 14 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Further, JMFS agreed to pay the State of Washington $150,000 without admitting to any fact, liability, misconduct or wrongdoing on JMFS’s part.”

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

Washington State litigation regarding 'no-poach' clauses signals potential employment law compliance issues across the system

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 Jersey Mike's verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls