Does Augusta Lawn Care deny liability in the lawsuit?
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 FDD, Augusta Lawn Care is currently involved in a lawsuit: Abraham Bilgoray v. Mike Andes, Augusta Franchise LLC, Augusta Franchise LLC Suite, and Augusta Lawn Care Corporation, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00584. The plaintiff, a former franchisee, alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentation due to the purported non-receipt of the Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD) before signing. The plaintiff is seeking rescission of contracts and restitution.
Augusta Lawn Care has responded to the lawsuit by filing a motion to stay, transfer, and/or dismiss the case on several grounds. These grounds include that the franchise agreement requires claims to be brought before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), or alternatively, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. They also argue that the plaintiff's claims are deficient under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, lack merit under the applicable documents, and are barred by the statute of limitations.
Specifically, Augusta Lawn Care denies any liability in the lawsuit. The company states that it is confident it will prevail in the litigation and recover its attorneys' fees and costs incurred. This indicates that Augusta Lawn Care is actively defending itself against the allegations and believes it has a strong legal position.