FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Robeks litigation history
What Robeks 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
- $50K
- 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
DRNK Coffee + Tea, LLC and Mostafa Narimanzadeh v. Mitchell Baker, Robeks Corporation, and Robeks Franchise Corp. (Case No. 21STCV21980, Los Angeles Superior Court). Plaintiffs asserted claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations, unfair competition, defamation per se, trade libel, conversion, invasion of privacy, and violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act. Claims alleged interference with DRNK franchise lease location efforts and interference with DRNK franchisee relationship. Robeks Defendants' demurer granted on some claims, overruled on others. Matter resolved via settlement agreement executed April 10, 2024, with Robeks Defendants paying $50,000 and case dismissed with prejudice. Mutual releases of liability included.
Item 3 (litigation) · 1 matter disclosed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (1)
DRNK Coffee + Tea, LLC, DRNK Coffee + Tea Franchising, LLC; Mostafa Narimanzadeh a/k/a Thomas Nariman v. Mitchell Baker, Robeks Corporation, Robeks Franchise Corp.
settledBrought by a third party · filed 2021-06-10 · Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles · 21STCV21980
“… Case No. 21STCV21980, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.”Page 12 of the 2025 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Robeks Defendants paid $50,000 to Plaintiffs in full and final settlement of the claims asserted, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement executed by all parties on April 10, 2024, which settlement agreement includes mutual releases of liability.”
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
- One concluded lawsuit (settled April 2024)
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?