FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Next Day Access litigation history

What Next Day Access 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: 14; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $1K; 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

Minnesota Consent Order (Feb 11, 2022): franchisor consented to order alleging sale of two unregistered franchises in violation of Minn. Stat. § 80C.02; agreed to pay $1,000 civil penalty and $180 investigative costs; required to disclose for 3 years.

Item 3 (litigation) · 14 matters disclosed · 5 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (1)

Next Day Access, LLC v. Agape Mobility Access, Inc., Joel Varghese, and Feba Gabriel
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2026 · Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Brantford Ontario, Canada · SC-26-00000084-0000
“… Claim No. SC- 26-00000084-0000; Ontario Superior Court of Justice; Brantford Ontario, Canada On or about February 24, 2026, Next Day Access filed suit against Defendant, an Ontario, Canada franchisee, for failure to pay monies owed.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (1)

Administrative Proceeding before the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce: 70650-BD
concluded
Government or regulatory action · State of Minnesota Department of Commerce · 70650-BD
“… On February 11, 2022, we consented to the entry of a Consent Order by the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce based upon the allegation that we sold two unregistered franchises in violation of Minn. Stat. § 80C.02 (2020).”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In that Consent Order, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $1,000 to the State of Minnesota and $180 in investigative costs.”

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (4)

Blue Moon Franchise Systems, LLC v. Woodley Corp and Jovan Woodley, an individual
pending
Brought against a franchisee · Blue Moon Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2026 · State of Michigan, Circuit Court for the County of Oakland · 2026-220746-CB
“… Case No. 2026-220746-CB; State of Michigan, Circuit Court for the County of Oakland. On or about February 5, 2026, Blue Moon filed suit against the Defendants, former franchisees of Blue Moon for breach of contract and failure to pay monies owed.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Quality In Home Care LLC and Bartosz and Ewa Balaz, individuals
pending
Brought against a franchisee · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2025 · Circuit Court of Cook County; Illinois Law Division · 2025L013873
“… Case No. 2025L013873; In the Circuit Court of Cook County; Illinois Law Division On or about November 7, 2025, ComForCare filed suite against Defendant for breach of contract and failure to pay monies owed.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Patrick Deadrick, By and Through His Successors in Interest, Phil Shirinian v. Maggie Artsvelian and Harry Artsvelian d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – West Hollywood; ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC; DOES 1-50; and DOES 51-60
pending
ComForCare (named as ComForCare Health Care Holdings, LLC in the caption; the text says the suit is against ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC) · filed 2024 · Superior Court of the State of California In and For the County of Los Angeles · 24-SM-CV-03032
“Case No. 24-SM-CV-03032; In the Superior Court of the State of California In and For the County of Los Angeles On or about June 21, 2024, Plaintiff, who represents the estate of Mr. Deadrick, filed suit against ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC alleging that former franchisees of ComForCare negligently cared for Mr. Deadrick.”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – Chester South, et. al.
pending
Brought against a franchisee · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2023 · State of Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland · 2023-203856
“… Case No. 2023-203856”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Within this matter, as the filing narrates it
- Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – Chester South, et. al.
  pending
  Brought by a franchisee · names an affiliate · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · State of Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland · 2024-207989-CB
  “and Platinum Care, Inc. d/b/a ComForCare Home Care – Chester South, et. al., Case No. 2024-207989-CB; State of Michigan Circuit Court for the County of Oakland.”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Counted as one matter, the way Item 3 groups it.

Concluded (7)

Blue Moon Franchise Systems, LLC v. Nyasha Namburi, an individual
dismissed
Brought against a franchisee · Blue Moon Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2025 · Superior Court of California, County of Fresno · 25CESC01188
“… Case No. 25CESC01188; Superior Court of California, County of Fresno On or about October 22, 2025, Blue Moon filed suit against the Defendant, a former franchisee of Blue Moon for failure to pay monies owed. At the time of this disclosure, the case was dismissed without prejudice.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC v. BP Senior Resources LLC and Bonnie and Lance Parker
settled
Brought against a franchisee · CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2025 · Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County · CV2025-032829
“… Case No. CV2025-032829; In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa County On or about September 10, 2025, CarePatrol filed suit against Defendants for breach of contract, breach of guaranty, breach of the non-compete, and the misappropriation of trade secrets under Arizona law.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about February 20, 2026, the parties settled the matter wherein the Defendants were let out of the system by paying CarePatrol $31,500 as well as agreeing to stop any form of competition or use of trade secrets.”
CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC v. Assisted Living Finders, LLC and Wendy Rickenbach-Barclay
settled
Brought against a franchisee · CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2024 · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division · 2:24-cv-11556
“Case No. 2:24-cv-11556; In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division On or about June 13, 2024, CarePatrol filed suit against Defendant, who was a former franchisee of CarePatrol, for violating the non-compete and confidentiality provisions of the Franchise Agreement.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about January 23, 2025, the parties settled the matter with Defendant agreeing to stop competing against CarePatrol and its franchised system for a period of 12 months.”
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC v. Dahlia Home Care, Inc., et. al.
settled
Brought against a franchisee · ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (common controlled affiliate) · filed 2024 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno · 24CECG00550
“… Case No. 24CECG00550; Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno On or about February 7, 2024, ComForCare filed suit against Defendant, a current franchisee of ComForCare, for failing to timely pay fees owed under its Franchise Agreement, failing to provide access to its books and records”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about December 31, 2025, the parties settled the matter.”
WorkFit Medical Staffing, PLLC v. ComForCare Home Care, Riverside Parnters, LLC d/b/a The Riverside Company, and Best Life Brands
dismissed
ComForCare Home Care (affiliate), also naming parent Best Life Brands and The Riverside Company · filed 2024 · Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe · E2024018476
“Index No. E2024018476, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Monroe On or about November 4, 2024, Plaintiff, a medical staffing agency located in Rochester, NY, filed suit against an independently owned and operated ComForCare Franchised Business located in Rochester, NY.”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On or about June 26, 2025, the Court dismissed ComForCare, Best Life Brands, LLC and the Riverside Group from the matter.”
Federal Trade Commission Docket No C-4379
concluded
Government or regulatory action · CarePatrol (the complaint named 'CAREPATROL, Inc.', which the filing says is not an existing entity) · filed 2012-12-03 · Federal Trade Commission · C-4379
“Common Controlled Affiliate Administrative Actions Applicable to CarePatrol Franchise Systems, LLC Federal Trade Commission Docket No C-4379”Page 17 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “In compliance, CarePatrol modified the wording on its website pursuant to FTC instructions. No consumer was involved nor made any complaint. There was no fine or penalty imposed.” (page 18)
Administrative Proceeding before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland: Case No. 2010-0082
concluded
Government or regulatory action · ComForCare Health Care Holdings, Inc. (predecessor franchisor of the affiliate ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC) · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2010-0082
“… In 2007, the predecessor franchisor (ComForCare Health Care Holdings, Inc.) to our Common Controlled Affiliate, ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC, filed a franchise renewal application in Maryland”Page 18 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On April 15, 2010, ComForCare and the Maryland Securities Commissioner, reached an agreement to enter a Consent Order pursuant to which ComForCare agreed to cease and desist from offering or selling franchises in violation of Maryland Franchise Law and agreed to offer rescission to the three Maryland franchises. One franchisee elected to rescind.”

Status not stated in the filing (1)

Deora Deland v. ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC and At Your Side Home Care
ComForCare Franchise Systems, LLC (co-defendant: its Houston franchisee At Your Side Home Care) · filed 2025 · District Court of Harris County, Texas · 202550555
“Cause No. 202550555; In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, State of Texas On or about July 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant ComForCare as well as one of its Houston, Texas franchisees (“Defendant AYS’). Plaintiff claims that Defendant AYS failed to provide care resulting in Plaintiff being admitted to the hospital.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

One proceeding above is indented under the matter it belongs to because the filing narrates them inside it — an appeal, a consolidated case, a related arbitration. Each carries its own quote and page. They are counted with their matter, not as extra matters, so this list and the 14 Item 3 discloses agree.

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

Litigation pattern: Multiple breach of contract, non-payment, and non-compete violations indicate franchisor-franchisee relationship dysfunction

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 Next Day Access verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls