What is the year the case was filed by Beyond Juicery Eatery against the former franchisee?
Beyond_Juicery_Eatery Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
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 was filed on April 22, 2025, against a former franchisee. The case, BEYOND JUICERY + EATERY FRANCHISING, LLC v. JP JUICE, LLC and PHILIP BATTEN, was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, with Case No. 25-cv-11157.
The purpose of the litigation is to collect past-due fees and liquidated damages that are owed under the franchise agreement. Beyond Juicery Eatery is also seeking to enforce post-termination, confidentiality, and non-disclosure agreements, as well as covenants not to compete. Additionally, a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was filed, which was pending as of the date of the FDD.
As of the date of the 2025 Disclosure Document, the former franchisee or principal owner had not yet filed a response, and the case remains open. This type of litigation is not uncommon in franchising when a franchisee fails to meet their financial obligations or violates the terms of the franchise agreement, particularly after termination.