FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Retrofitness litigation history

What Retrofitness 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: 5; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $600K; 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

Multiple NJ class-action style suits alleging violations of NJ Retail Installment Sales Act, Health Club Services Act, Consumer Fraud Act re: membership agreements (Ardino - dismissed w/ prejudice, on appeal; Morrell - dismissed, remanded on appeal); Westchester Fitness NY franchisee dispute alleging Franchise Agreement breach and NY Franchise Sales Act violation (pending); concluded AAA arbitration (Pirlet/Musculi) settled for $600,000.

Item 3 (litigation) · 5 matters disclosed · 4 pending listed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Pending (4)

Retrofitness, LLC v. Choice Design Corp., Aldrich Plaza, LLC, Patrick Kerr, and Carrie-Ann Kerr
pending
Brought against a franchisee · filed 2025-09-26 · Superior Court of New Jersey · MON-L-3941-25
“… Docket No. MON-L-3941-25, MON-L-3941-25 (Superior Court of New Jersey , September 26, 2025).”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Shaun Morrell v. Retrofitness, LLC, ABC Financial Services Company, Inc., et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2020-11-17 · Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County; Appellate Division · MID-L-7998-20; A-003294-23
“Shaun Morrell v. Retrofitness, LLC, ABC Financial Services Company, Inc., Rocalor Fitness, LLC d/b/a Retro Fitness of East Windsor, Robert O. Hahl, Lori A. Hahl, Eric Casaburi, Andrew Alfano, John/Jane Does 1-250, Defendant Retrofitness Franchisees 1-125, and”Page 11 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Westchester Fitness, LLC v. Retrofitness, LLC and Robert Sprechman
pending
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2020-01-02 · Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County (removed to E.D.N.Y. and remanded) · 600083/2020; 2:20-cv-00699-PKC-LB
“… This case was filed on or about January 2, 2020 in the Supreme Court New York, Suffolk County, (Index #: 600083/2020), and was subsequently moved to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No. 2:20-cv-00699-PKC-LB).”Page 11 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Joseph Ardino, Samantha Ardino, Krista DeFazio, Scott Richter, James Heaney, and Phillip Mazzucco v. Retrofitness, LLC, ABC Financial Services, Inc., et al.
pending
Brought by a third party · filed 2014-01-17 · Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County · MID-L-362-14
“Joseph Ardino, Samantha Ardino, Krista DeFazio, Scott Richter, James Heaney, and Phillip Mazzucco v. Retrofitness, LLC, ABC Financial Services, Inc., Z Times Three, LLC d/b/a/ RetroFitness of Kenilworth, Britcarianna, LLC, d/b/a RetroFitness Fairfield, PJ’s Fitness Express, Inc. d/b/a RetroFitness of Bordentown, PRJ Holding, LLC d/b/a RetroFitness of Wall.”Page 10 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3

Concluded (1)

Kimberly Ann Pirlet, and Musculi, LLC v. Retrofitness, LLC, Fierce Brands, LLC, Robert Sprechman, Matt Schultz and Patrick Pantano
settled
Brought by a franchisee · filed 2020-10-21 · American Arbitration Association · 01-20-0015-3621
“… This arbitration was demanded on or around October 21, 2020 before the American Arbitration Association, Arbitration (Case No. 01-20-0015-3621).”Page 12 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Retrofitness paid a settlement amount of $600,000 and Plaintiffs reaffirmed all post-term obligations, including provisions relating to indemnification, confidentiality, use of Retrofitness’ trademarks and service marks, the non-compete covenants and other restrictive covenants.”

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

Four litigation matters including NJ consumer-fraud/class-action-style suits

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