FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Pet Evolution litigation history
What Pet Evolution 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
- 1
- 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
One pending case is disclosed: AGDG Investments LLC and Fufu & Tommy LLC v. Pet Evolution Franchising, LLC, Peter Carlson, Fred Macciocchi and Rian Thiele (Superior Court of California, Orange County, Case No. 30-2024-01437355-CU-BC-CJC), in which former franchisees allege misrepresentations in the sale of a unit and a regional development franchise under the California Franchise Investment Law plus fraud, breach of contract and unfair competition, seeking unspecified damages and rescission. The defendants deny the allegations and on May 13, 2025 filed a demurrer arguing the plaintiffs sued before mediating as their agreements require.
Item 3 (litigation) · 1 matter disclosed · 1 pending listed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Pending (1)
Deepak Goyal (“Goyal”), Ameeta Raul Goyal, Fufu & Tommy, LLC et al (“Initial Plaintiffs”) v. Pet Evolution Franchising, LLC and DOES 1-50; AGDG Investments LLC and Fufu & Tommy LLC (“Plaintiffs”) v. Pet Evolution Franchising, LLC, Peter Carlson; Fred Macciocchi; Rian Thiele; and DOES 1-50
pendingBrought by a franchisee · filed 2024-10-31 · Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County · 30-2024-01437355-CU-BC-CJC
“Ameeta Raul Goyal, Fufu & Tommy, LLC et al (“Initial Plaintiffs”) v. Pet Evolution Franchising, LLC and DOES 1-50 (Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County), Case No. 30-2024-01437355-CU-BC-CJC, filed October 31, 2024 (“Initial Complaint”);”Page 11 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
- Active litigation alleging fraud, misrepresentation of sales/earnings, and violations of California Franchise Investment Law — indicates potential systemic disclosure failures
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?