FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2025 filing
Surf City Squeeze litigation history
What Surf City Squeeze 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 & 4 at a glance
What the filing discloses
- Cases disclosed
- 15
- Item 3, as counted in the filing
- Largest disclosed settlement
- $661K
- 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
Two concluded cases: (1) Purav Enterprises, L.L.C., et al. v. The Extreme Pita Franchising USA, Inc., et al. (Washington Superior Court, King County, Case No. 15-2-15120-7) - Franchisees alleged FIPA violations, misrepresentation of financial performance, and unregistered broker claims. Settled March 11, 2016 for $20,000, dismissed March 16, 2016. (2) KOHO, Inc. v. Kahala Franchising, L.L.C. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC572565) - Area Representative sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment; Kahala cross-complained. Court granted judgment for Kahala; awarded $205,000 in attorney's fees. Parties settled June 19, 2017 with Kahala repurchasing territory for $75,000 and forgiving $130,000 in damages.
Disclosure signals that moved the score
How this shows up in the verdict
- 17 litigation matters (affiliate suits + state consent orders)
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?