FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

JINYA Ramen Bar litigation history

What JINYA Ramen Bar disclosed about lawsuits, arbitrations and bankruptcy in the 2025 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: 4; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $410K; As stated in Item 3

Bankruptcy (Item 4): None; Franchisor, parent, predecessor or officer

Filing year: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

4 matters disclosed: (1) SF Yakiniku arbitration settled $410K (2020); (2) Socal Ramen suit settled $73K (2020); (3) PAM Group multi-court litigation settled $345K (2015); (4) Masayuki Ueda suit settled $0 from franchisor (2017).

Item 3 (litigation) · 4 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (2)

SF Yakiniku Corp., et al. v. Jinya Franchise, Inc.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2019-08-29 · JAMS Arbitration, Orange County, CA · 1200056358
“… JAMS Arbitration, Orange County, CA (JAMS No. 1200056358) (August 29, 2019).”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This case settled in September 2020 for a payment by our insurance carrier of $410,000 and was subsequently closed on October 5, 2020.” (page 11)
La Brea Dining California, Inc. v. The PAM Group, LLC (with The PAM Group, LLC v. La Brea Dining California, Inc.; Jinya Franchise, Inc.; and Jinya Franchise, Inc. and La Brea Dining California, Inc. v. The PAM Group, LLC and Michelle Wang)
settled
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2013-01-03 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · 13U00129
“La Brea Dining California, Inc. v. The PAM Group, LLC, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 13U00129).”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On May 19, 2015, we, LBDC-USA and Mr. Takahashi (collectively, the "Jinya Parties"), and PAM and Wang (collectively, the "PAM Parties") entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of All Claims, under which the Jinya Parties agreed to pay the PAM Parties $345,000, and all parties agreed” (page 12)

Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)

Concluded (2)

Socal Ramen LLC v. Tomonori Takahashi, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · Tomonori Takahashi (founder) · filed 2020-02-20 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · 20BBCV00160
“… Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 20BBCV00160) (February 20, 2020).”Page 11 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “This case was settled in October 2020 by a payment from our insurance carrier in the amount of $73,000.”
Masayuki Ueda v. Tomonori Takahashi, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · Tomonori Takahashi (founder) and affiliated companies · filed 2017-02-28 · Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles · EC066421
“… Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. EC066421. On February 28, 2017, Masayuki Ueda filed a complaint against our founder Tomonori Takahashi;”Page 12 of the 2025 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.

Disclosure signals that moved the score

How this shows up in the verdict

Four litigation settlements totaling $828,000+ within 7 years, including territorial exclusivity disputes and fraud allegations
ADA compliance lawsuit (2020) indicates potential operational/compliance gaps across 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 JINYA Ramen Bar verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls