FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing

Tommy’s Express litigation history

What Tommy’s Express 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: 3; Item 3, as counted in the filing

Largest settlement, franchisor's own cases: $11K; 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

All three disclosed matters are state regulatory/administrative franchise-registration enforcement actions (not private civil litigation): (1) California DFPI consent order re: CFIL violations, $11,000 penalty; (2) Maryland Securities Commissioner consent order re: 3 unregistered franchise sales (2018, 2021, 2023), $5,000 penalty plus rescission offer; (3) Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce consent order re: franchise sales before registration renewal, $2,000 penalty against franchisor and principal Ryan Essenburg.

Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed

Litigation cases

The franchisor

Concluded (3)

In the Matter of the Commissioner of Financial Protection and Innovation v. Tommy's Express LLC
concluded
Government or regulatory action · filed 2025-01-29 · Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation of the State of California, January 29, 2025.”Page 15 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the Consent Tommy's Express Car Wash FDD 2026 16 512805527-v10\NA_DMS Order, Tommy's Express LLC agreed to: (1) desist and refrain from violating the CFIL in all respects; and (2) pay an administrative monetary penalty of $11,000 to the DFPI.” (page 16)
In the Matter of Tommy's Express LLC dba Tommy's Express Car Wash
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Securities Commissioner of Maryland · 2022-0187
“… Administrative Proceeding Before the Securities Commissioner of Maryland, Case No. 2022-0187.”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Under the Consent Order, Tommy's Express LLC agreed (1) to comply with the Maryland Franchise Law, in all respects, (2) offer rescission relating to the unregistered franchise sales, and (3) to reimburse the state of Maryland, as a civil monetary penalty, $5,000.”
Minnesota v. Tommy's Express LLC (Respondent) and its principal, Ryan Essenburg (Principal)
concluded
Government or regulatory action · Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce · 66450
“… File #66450. The Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce (Commissioner) sought to commence formal action against Respondent and Principal due to allegations Respondent”Page 16 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “Payment to the State of Minnesota of a civil penalty of $2,000 was required of Respondent, Respondent and Principal will not violate any laws, rules, or orders under Minnesota franchise statutes, and any new franchise offers or sales in Minnesota will not be made without an effective registration or without qualifying for an exemption.”

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

Nondisclosure of officer bankruptcy in CA applications

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 Tommy’s Express verdict Risk analysis on the brand page Franchisee contacts for due-diligence calls