FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing

Petland litigation history

What Petland 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: 6; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $5K; 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

Six concluded cases, all involving customer complaints about pets purchased from Petland corporate or franchised stores (sick/behavioral issues). All settled confidentially. No pending claims or material civil actions.

Item 3 (litigation) · 6 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (6)

Madden, et al. v. Petland Summerville, LLC (and Petland, Inc.)
dismissed
Brought by the franchisor · filed 2020-07-15 · Court of Common Pleas, Dorchester County, South Carolina; U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina · 2020-CP-18-010151; 2:20cv2953-DCN
“Madden, et al. v. Petland Summerville, LLC, Case No. 2020-CP-18-010151 (Court of Common Pleas for the First Judicial Circuit in Dorchester County, South Carolina); removed on August 14, 2020, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina and given Case No. 2:20cv2953-DCN.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Beth Kramer v. D.A.W. Pets, LLC, et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · filed 2019-04-30 · Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · AR-19-000585
“… Case No. AR-19-000585 (Allegheny Cty., Pa. Ct. of C.P.) Nature of Case: The case was filed on April 30, 2019, in the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas against Petland Inc. and a Petland franchise operating in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.”Page 16 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “which included Petland contributing $4,500 to the final settlement amount to the Plaintiff in exchange for a dismissal of the case.”
Brittany A. Mitchell v. Petland, Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · filed 2019-10-01 · Licking County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas · 19CV01035
“… Case No. 19CV01035 (Licking County, Ohio, C.P.) Nature of Case: The case was filed on October 1, 2019, in the Licking County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Petland agreed to a confidential settlement of this matter that includes Petland paying $4,500 to the Plaintiff in exchange for a release of monetary claims against Petland from Plaintiff.” (page 16)
Chrystal and Robert Rivas v. Petland, Inc.
settled
Brought by a third party · Ross County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas; JAMS · 24CI000026
“… Case No. 24CI000026 (Ross County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas). Nature of Case: Plaintiffs allege various claims against the Company related to Mr. Rivas’ purchase of a dog from a Company owned and operated pet”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “As part of the settlement, the Company paid $3,630.00 to the Plaintiffs. On or about January 3, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Dismissal dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.”
Hart v. Petland, Inc., et al.
settled
Brought by a third party · Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania · AR-20-001339
“… Case No. AR-20-001339 (Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) Nature of Case: The case was filed as a complaint for arbitration against the Company and its Chairman Edward Kunzelman.”Page 15 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Jonese v. Petland Charleston
settled
Brought by a third party · Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia · 21-C-424
“… Civil Action No. 21-C-424 (Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia). Nature of Case: Plaintiff Alex Jonese purchased a dog from a Company owned and operated pet store in South Charleston, West Virginia.”Page 14 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “which included Petland contributing $4,500 to the final settlement amount to the Plaintiff in exchange for an agreed to dismiss the case.”

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

Chronic litigation involving fraud, consumer protection violations, and breach of contract claims — reputational and operational risk
Litigation settlements indicate ongoing customer dissatisfaction and potential compliance issues with animal welfare standards

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