FDD Items 3 & 4 · 2026 filing
World Of Sourdough litigation history
What World Of Sourdough 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
- $240K
- 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
Three cases in Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, arising from claims by former franchisees of Sourdough & Co. against the franchisor and its principals for franchise law violations, fraud, and related claims; one settled for $240,000, others dismissed with prejudice.
Item 3 (litigation) · 3 matters disclosed
Litigation cases
The franchisor
Concluded (1)
GSD Foods, Inc., Davinder Singh, an individual, Powerglide Holdings, LLC, Kaldeep Uppal, an individual; SD-Folsom, Inc. v. Sourdough & Co., Inc., SFSE of EDH, Inc., Lowell Steven Presson, an individual, R. Gordon Ross, an Individual, David Bagley, an individual, and World of Sourdough Franchising, L
settledBrought by a franchisee · filed 2020-03-09 · Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento · 34-2020-0027829B
“GSD Foods, Inc., Davinder Singh, an individual, Powerglide Holdings, LLC, Kaldeep Uppal, an individual; SD-Folsom, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) v. Sourdough & Co., Inc., SFSE of EDH, Inc., Lowell Steven Presson, an individual, R. Gordon Ross, an Individual, David”Page 8 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
Outcome: “The parties settled all claims and entered into a confidential settlement agreement with us settling all claims for $240,000 to be paid in installments.”
Officers and directors (individuals, not the company)
Concluded (2)
S.L. Presson Inc. vs. Lowell Steven Presson
dismissedLowell Steven Presson (our managing member and owner) · filed 2020-07-16 · Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento · 34-2020-002818172
“S.L. Presson Inc. (“Plaintiff”) vs. Lowell Steven Presson filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 34-2020-002818172).”Page 9 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
KULWANT SINGH, an individual; JOGINDER DULAI, an individual v. S.L. PRESSON, INC., a California corporation; PRAB GROUP, a California corporation; STEVE PRESSON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive
dismissedSteve Presson (our managing member and owner), S.L. Presson, Inc. and PRAB Group · filed 2019-11-27 · Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento · 34-2020-00278230
“KULWANT SINGH, an individual; JOGINDER DULAI, an individual (“Plaintiffs”) v. S.L. PRESSON, INC., a California corporation;”Page 9 of the 2026 FDD, Item 3
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.
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?