FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Mighty Dog Roofing litigation history

What Mighty Dog Roofing 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: 9; 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: 2025; Disclosures cover the prior ten years

Extracted from the 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document

Item 3: litigation

4 franchisor-initiated suits against former franchisees for non-compete/royalty violations (Backporch Partners, TRI JB Corp, Flex Nine Exteriors, Warrior Home Services); 4 suits filed against franchisor by franchisees alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract (Labento LLC, ECR Home Concepts, Gortz Enterprises, JMR Capital Holdings)

Item 3 (litigation) · 9 matters disclosed · 9 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (8)

ECR Home Concepts, LLC et al. v. MDR United LLC et al.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-12-10 · U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska · 8:25-cv-00708-BCB-RCC
“ECR Home Concepts, LLC et al. v. MDR United LLC et. al (D.Neb. No. 8:25-cv-00708-BCB- RCC). On December 10, 2025, Plaintiffs ECR Home Concepts LLC, Prop & Wings LLC, Lanoga Investment Company, and Innovation Brands LLC filed a civil action in the U.S.”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Gortz Enterprise Inc., et al. v. MDR United LLC et al.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-12-12 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2:25-cv-070000
“… (E.D.PA No. 2:25-cv-070000). On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs Gortz Enterprises, Inc., Bauer Industries LLC, and THP Solutions filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
JMR Capital Holdings, INC., et al. v. MDR United LLC et al.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-12-12 · U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2:25-cv-18583-JKS-MAH
“… (D.N.J No. 2:25-cv-18583-JKS- MAH). On December 12, 2025, Plaintiffs JMR Capital Holdings Inc., MSG Contracting Corp., Scale Beyond LLC, and On Top Roofing Corp., filed a civil action in the U.S.”Page 20 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Labento, LLC v. MDR United LLC et al.
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2025-11-06 · Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida (removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida) · 50-2025-CA-011078
“… (Fla. 15th Cir. Ct. No. 50-2025-CA-011078). On November 6, 2025, Plaintiff Labento, LLC filed an action in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (the “Complaint”) against MDR United LLC and Joshua Hoffmann (collectively, the “MDR Parties”).”Page 19 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
MDR United LLC v. Backporch Partners, Inc., et al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-08-09 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2:25-cv-04532
“… (E.D. Pa. No 2:25-cv-04532). On August 9, 2025, MDR United LLC filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Complaint”) to enforce a non-competition covenant”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
MDR United LLC v. Flex Nine Exteriors Inc., et al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-09-04 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2:25-cv-05073
“… (E.D. Pa. No 2:25-cv-05073). On September 4, 2025, MDR United LLC filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Complaint”) to enforce a non-competition”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
MDR United LLC v. TRI JB Corp., et al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-09-04 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2:25-cv-05074
“… (E.D. Pa. No 2:25-cv-05074). On September 4, 2025, MDR United LLC filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Complaint”) to enforce a non-competition covenant and other”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
MDR United LLC v. Warrior Home Services Inc., et al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-10-09 · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2:25-cv-5828
“… (E.D. Pa. No 2:25-cv-5828). On October 9, 2025, MDR United LLC filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Complaint”) to enforce a non-competition”Page 18 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (1)

Beutler Holdings, LLC and Zachery Beutler v. Joshua Skolnick, Skolnick Holdings, LLC, and JEZ Investments, LLC
pending
JEZ Investments, LLC (our parent); Joshua Skolnick · filed 2025-12-08 · American Arbitration Association, Omaha, Nebraska
“… (American Arbitration Association, Omaha, Nebraska).”Page 20 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

Nine total litigation actions (4 franchisor-initiated + 5 franchisee rescission claims) indicate material disputes and potential misrepresentation issues
Five pending franchisee rescission lawsuits based on misrepresentation allegations suggest systemic disclosure or performance promise problems

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 Mighty Dog Roofing verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls