What is the basis of the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claim against Augusta Lawn Care?
Augusta_Lawn_Care Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Abraham Bilgoray v. Mike Andes, Augusta Franchise LLC, Augusta Franchise LLC Suite, and Augusta Lawn Care Corporation, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00584, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (originally filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Rockland County, on December 16, 2024 and removed to federal court on January 21, 2025). Plaintiff is a former franchisee of Augusta Lawn Care that alleges fraud and negligent
misrepresentation, based on a purported non-receipt of Augusta's pre-signing Franchise Disclosure Document (the "FDD"). Plaintiff therefore seeks rescission of contracts and restitution. Augusta moved to stay, transfer, and/or dismiss on multiple grounds, including: (i) Plaintiff's franchise agreement requires that he bring any claim before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"); (ii) to the extent Plaintiff was not required to file his claim in the AAA, he was required to file suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; (iii) Plaintiff's claims are deficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (iv) Plaintiff's fraud-based claims are without merit under the applicable documents; and (v) the applicable statute(s) of limitations bar Plaintiff's claims. Augusta denies any liability and is confident it will prevail in the litigation and recoup its attorneys' fees and costs incurred.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 11–12)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Augusta Lawn Care Franchise Disclosure Document, a former franchisee filed a lawsuit alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The claim is based on the franchisee's assertion that they did not receive Augusta Lawn Care's Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) before signing the franchise agreement.
This lawsuit, Abraham Bilgoray v. Mike Andes, Augusta Franchise LLC, Augusta Franchise LLC Suite, and Augusta Lawn Care Corporation, seeks rescission of the contracts and restitution. Augusta Lawn Care has responded by filing a motion to stay, transfer, or dismiss the case, citing several reasons, including that the franchise agreement mandates arbitration through the American Arbitration Association (AAA), the suit was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, the claims are deficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the fraud claims lack merit, and the statute of limitations has expired.
Augusta Lawn Care denies any liability and states it is confident it will win the litigation and recover its legal fees and costs. This legal dispute highlights the critical importance of providing the FDD to prospective franchisees within the legally mandated timeframe and ensuring proper documentation of its receipt. Franchisees should consult with legal counsel to understand their rights and obligations regarding the FDD and franchise agreement.