FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Panda Express litigation history

What Panda Express 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: 13; 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 pending cases (labor/PAGA/data breach claims); 9 concluded cases including wage/hour class actions settled for $2.86M (Khan Kudo), $4.1M (Tapia), $2.75M (Martinez/Minas/Lee consolidated), $900K cash + $500K vouchers (Ross/Scott delivery fee), $38K (Trujillo harassment); NovaDine arbitration where PRG prevailed on some claims and received net award of $5.3M against $1.7M for plaintiff.

Item 3 (litigation) · 13 matters disclosed · 4 pending listed

Litigation cases

Parent, affiliates, master franchisor and subfranchisor

Pending (4)

Americo Pena, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Panda Express, Inc., and Does 1 - 50
pending
Brought by a third party · Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda Express, Inc. · filed 2024-06-24 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · 24STCV15775
“Case No. 24STCV15775). On June 24, 2024 Plaintiff filed a class action asserting: (1) Unpaid Wages; (2) Inaccurate Wage Statements; (3) Unfair or Unlawful Business Practices; and (4) Violation of the California Labor Code.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Aveon Goosby v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc./Panda Express, Inc. (No. 23STCV31730)
pending
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) · filed 2023-12-28 · California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles · 23STCV31730
“Case No. 23STCV31730). In a separate individual action, on December 28, 2023, former associate, Aveon Goosby filed a complaint against PRG alleging: (i) Whistleblower Retaliation; (ii) Wrongful Termination and (iii) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Aveon Goosby v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc./Panda Express, Inc.
pending
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) / Panda Express, Inc. (PEI) · California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles · 23STCV15228
“Case No. 23STCV15228). On 5/23/23 we received Plaintiff’s written PAGA notice for claims against Panda. The notice alleges Panda violated Labor Code Section 1391 by employing Plaintiff and other similarly situated associates for hours beyond what is legally allowed.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Marc-Antony Halliday v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.
pending
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · 24STCV12667
“… (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 24STCV12667). On 5/16/24, former associate Marc- Anthony Halliday filed class action lawsuit against PRG alleging claims for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence per se; (3) declaratory judgment; (4) violation of California Consumer Privacy Act”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The Halliday lawsuit is one of nine class action lawsuits filed against PRG arising out of a data security incident which occurred between March 7, 2024, and March 10, 2024. On October 1, 2024, the parties agreed to a conditional global settlement of all the lawsuits.” (page 15)

Concluded (9)

Yaritza Martinez v. Panda Express, Inc., Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Panda Express, LLC, and DOES 1-10
settled
Panda Express, Inc. and Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (parents) with Panda Express, LLC (affiliate) · filed 2023-02-09 · California Superior Court, County of Solano · FCS059627
“On February 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit regarding her wage and hour PAGA claims, including: (i) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages, Including Overtime; (ii) Failure to Provide Lawful Meal Periods; (iii) Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “On December 16, 2024, the Court approved a settlement of $2,752,965.”
Jeffrey Lee v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.
settled
Panda Express, Inc. (PEI, a parent) with Panda Express, LLC and Panda Express (P.R.), Inc. (affiliates); the caption names Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2022-03-16 · County of San Francisco Superior Court · CGC-22-599478
“… (County of San Francisco Superior Court PAGA, Case No. CGC-22-599478), On March 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a class action in the San Francisco County Superior Court against Panda Express, LLC, Panda Express, Inc. and Panda Express (P.R.), Inc. (“Defendants”), alleging (i) Unfair competition; (ii) failure to pay minimum wages”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Defendants defended the action, but to manage risk, elected to settle the matter, as described in Yaritza Martinez v. Panda Express, Inc., Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Panda Express, LLC, a”
Jeff Ross and Roxanne Oliveira v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and Does 1-50
settled
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) · filed 2021-01-29 · California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles · 21STCV03662
“Case No. 21STCV03662). On January 29, 2021, guests Jeff Ross and Roxanne Oliveira filed a class action against PRG alleging: (i) unfair competition in violation of California”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled the matter for $900,000 in cash and up to $500,000 in vouchers, to be distributed amongst those who elected to participate in the settlement.”
Lesly Minas v. Panda Express, Inc.; Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and Does 1-100
settled
Panda Express, Inc. and Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2021-08-11 · California Superior Court, Count of Los Angeles-Central District · 21STCV29628
“… (California Superior Court, Count of Los Angeles-Central District, Case No. 21STCV29628). On August 11, 2021, former associate Lesly Minas filed a class action against PRG alleging: (i) failure to pay wages for all hours of work at the legal minimum wage rate in violation of California Labor”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “PEI and PRG defended the action, but to manage risk, elected to settle the matter, as described in Yaritza Martinez v. Panda Express, Inc., Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Panda Express, LLC, and DOES 1” (page 17)
Natasha Scott v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., and Does 1-50
settled
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) · filed 2021-07-01 · U.S. District Court - Central District of California · 2:21-cv-05368-MCS-GJS
“On July 1, 2021, guest Natasha Scott filed a class action against PRG alleging: (i) unfair competition in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.; (ii) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §1750 et seq.; and (iii) violation of Michigan Consumer Protection Act”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled the matter for $900,000 in cash and up to $500,000 in vouchers, to be distributed amongst those who elected to participate in the settlement.”
Javier Lopez Tapia v. Panda Express, LLC, Panda Express, Inc., Panda Express (P.R.), Inc., and Does 1 through 50
settled
Panda Express, Inc. (PEI, a parent) with Panda Express, LLC and Panda Express (P.R.), Inc. (affiliates) · filed 2016-01-21 · California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles · BC607846
“Case No. BC607846). On January 21, 2016, former associate Javier Tapia filed a class action against PEL, PEI, and PE (PR) ( “Panda”) alleging: (i) unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Panda defended the action, but to manage risk, elected to settle the matter for $4.1 million, which was approved by the court on November 21, 2018”
Carmelo Trujillo v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Panda Express, LLC, Panda Express, Inc., Panda Express (P.R.), Inc, and Does 1 through 50
settled
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc., Panda Express, Inc. (parents) with Panda Express, LLC and Panda Express (P.R.), Inc. (affiliates) · filed 2015-10-14 · California Superior Court, County of San Diego · 37-2015-00034660-CU-WT-CTL
“Case No. 37-2015-00034660-CU-WT-CTL). On October 14, 2015, Carmelo Trujillo, a former associate working as kitchen help at a Panda Inn, located in San Diego, California, filed a suit against PRG, PEI, PE (PR) and PEL (together “Panda”) alleging: (i) harassment and hostile work environment”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “To manage risk on or about March 18, 2016, Panda entered into a settlement agreement and release of claims for $38,000” (page 16)
Khan Kudo, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Panda Express, Inc. and Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) and Panda Express, Inc. (PEI) · filed 2009-01-26 · United States District Court, Southern District of New York · 09 CV 0712-CS
“Case No.: 09 CV 0712-CS). On January 26, 2009, Khan Kudo, a former General Manager, filed a lawsuit against PRG and PEI on behalf of himself and current and former General Managers of Panda Express outside of California, alleging that they were entitled to unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “PRG and PEI defended the action, but to manage risk, elected to settle the matter (on a claims-made basis) with the entire class, in an aggregate amount equal to approximately $2.98 million, which was approved by the court on June 26, 2015. After the claims process, the settlement amount was reduced to approximately $2.86 million.”
NovaDine, Inc. v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.
judgment
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (PRG) · JAMS Arbitration
“… (JAMS Arbitration), On 2/10/23, Plaintiff, PRGs former online ordering vendor filed its amended Arbitration demand against Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. (“PRG”), alleging: (i) Breach of Contract; (ii) Fraudulent Inducement; and (iii) Unlawful Disclosure of Trade Secrets.”Page 17 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Novadine was awarded $1.7MM for the breach of contract, $0 for unlawful disclosure of trade secrets, but was also ordered to pay PRG $5.3MM. The award was finalized by the arbitrator on April 22, 2024.” (page 18)

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

Significant litigation exposure: multiple labor code violations (wages, hours, rest breaks) suggest potential franchisor operational compliance issues that may cascade to 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 Panda Express verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls