FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Nautical Bowls litigation history

What Nautical Bowls 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: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $75K; 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

Three former-franchisee lawsuits alleging state franchise/deceptive-trade-practices violations, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract in connection with franchise sales. Kirin Hawley case settled September 2025 for $75,000 (dismissed with prejudice). Bright Beacon, Inc. case settled August 2025 for $50,000 (dismissed with prejudice). Cheryl Hatfield case remains pending (pre-trial stage) as of the issuance date.

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

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

Cheryl Hatfield, et al v. Nautical Bowls Franchising, LLC, Peter Taunton, Bryant Amundson, Rachel Amundson, et al
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-12-22 · Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota · 27-CV-19329
“… Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota (Case No. 27-CV-19329).”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (2)

Bright Beacon, Inc. v. Nautical Bowls Franchising, LLC, Peter Taunton, Bryant Amundson, Rachel Amundson, et al.
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-12-27 · Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County · 37-2023- 00055847-CU-FR-CTL
“… Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County (Court File No. 37-2023- 00055847-CU-FR-CTL).”Page 10 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “we agreed to pay Plaintiff the amount of $50,000 and the parties mutually released the other of all claims, with no admission of liability by either party, and with each party agreeing to pay its own counsel fees and costs.”
Kirin Hawley, et al v. Nautical Bowls Franchising, LLC, Peter Taunton, Bryant Amundson, Rachel Amundson, et al
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2023-12-22 · Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota · 27-CV-23-19306
“… Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota (Case No. 27-CV-23-19306).”Page 9 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “we agreed to pay Plaintiffs the total amount of $75,000 ($50,000 in lump sum, and the remainder in twelve monthly non-interest bearing installments), and the parties mutually released the other of all claims, with no admission of liability by either party, and with each party agreeing to pay its own counsel fees and costs.” (page 10)

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

Three active lawsuits filed December 2023 alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and deceptive trade practices by former franchisees

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