Is the case between Beyond Juicery Eatery and the former franchisee currently open?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Except for the action described below, there is no litigation required to be disclosed in this Item.
Pending Action: Litigation Against Former Franchisee and Principal Owner for Collection of Past-Due Fees and Liquidated Damages and Enforcement of Post-Termination, Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure, and Covenants Not to Compete.
BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC v. JP JUICE, LLC and PHILIP BATTEN, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Case No. 25-cv-11157, Case filed April 22, 2025. On April 22, 2025, we filed a complaint against a former franchisee to collect past-due fees and liquidated damages owed under the franchise agreement and to enforce the posttermination, confidentiality and non-disclosure, and covenants not to compete. We also filed a motion for entry of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which is pending as of the date of this Disclosure Document. No response has currently been filed by the former franchisee or principal owner. The case remains open.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD page 15)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Beyond Juicery Eatery's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, a case filed on April 22, 2025, against a former franchisee, JP Juice, LLC, and Philip Batten, is currently open. The case, filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Case No. 25-cv-11157, seeks to collect past-due fees and liquidated damages under the franchise agreement.
Beyond Juicery Eatery is also pursuing enforcement of post-termination, confidentiality, and non-disclosure agreements, as well as covenants not to compete. Along with the complaint, Beyond Juicery Eatery filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which was pending as of the date of the FDD.
As of the date of the 2025 FDD, the former franchisee or principal owner had not yet filed a response. The document explicitly states, "The case remains open," indicating that the litigation is ongoing.