FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Motel 6 litigation history

What Motel 6 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: 5; 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

1 pending franchisee suit (MS & Sons, CA federal court); 1 prior franchisee suit settled (Park Property Management, UT); 1 prior class action (MALDEF/Arizona ICE guest data, $10M settlement); 1 government action (Washington State ICE guest data, $12M settlement); 1 collection action against former franchisee (Aesha LLC, TX 2024)

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed · 1 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

MS & Sons Hospitality, LLC, Mukesh K. Patel and Bhavin Patel v. G6 Hospitality LLC and Does 1-10; and G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC and G6 Hospitality IP, LLC v. MS & Sons Hospitality, LLC and Mukesh Patel
pending
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2023-06-23 · United States District Court for the Central District of California; Denton County District Court · 5:23-cv-01227; 23-7856-211
“MS & Sons Hospitality, LLC, Mukesh K. Patel and Bhavin Patel v. G6 Hospitality LLC and Does 1-10: United States District Court for the Central District of California; Case No.5:23-cv-01227; and G6 Hos”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In this case, we received default judgment in G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC’s favor. Final default judgment h”

Concluded (1)

Park Property Management, LLC v. G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC, et al.; G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC v. Joseph Park
concluded
filed 2018-11-16 · Fourth District Court of Utah County, State of Utah, Central Division · 180401843
“Park Property Management, LLC v. G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC, et al., G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC v. Joseph Park: Fourth District Court of Utah County, State of Utah, Central Division;”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “the Utah Supreme Court denied the petition for Writ of Certiorari, thus upholding the lower appellate court’s holding en”

Status not stated in the filing (1)

G6 Hospitality Franchising LLC vs. Aesha LLC, Savita Hospitality LLC, Mukesh Bhakta, and Mukund Patel
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2024-11-25 · 24-11146-431
“… Case No. 24-11146-431, Filed November 25, 2024”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Concluded (2)

Jane V., John A., John E., Jane F., John D., John M., Jane N., and John W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC
concluded
Brought by a third party · Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (affiliate and predecessor); G6 Hospitality LLC (parent) · filed 2018-01-23 · United States District Court for the District of Arizona
“Jane V., John A., John E., Jane F., John D., John M., Jane N., and John W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC, United States”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The three-year period under the Consent Decree expired by its own terms on February 18, 2023. Govern” (page 13)
State of Washington v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. and G6 Hospitality LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Motel 6 Operating, L.P. (affiliate and predecessor); G6 Hospitality LLC (parent) · filed 2018-02-02 · King County Superior Court of the State of Washington · 18-2-00283-4SEA
“… King County Superior Court of the State of Washington, No. 18-2-00283-4SEA. On”Page 13 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The 3-year period under the Consent Decree expired by its own terms on April 26, 2022.”

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

Multiple active litigation cases including franchise termination disputes, data privacy class actions, and franchisor collection actions indicate systemic operational and legal friction
Data privacy litigation (Jane V. class action, Washington State action) over guest information disclosure to immigration authorities creates reputational and operational liability risk

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 Motel 6 verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls