What is the case number for the AKT Lawsuit mentioned in the Bft Franchise Disclosure Document?
Bft Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., filed August 30, 2023 (as amended on November 20, 2023), Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01345433- CU-AT-CXC (the "AKT Lawsuit"). This action was filed by certain former AKT franchisees and their purported owners after AKT initiated an arbitration against and sought damages from certain of them for breaches of their franchise agreements. In addition to the relief described below, the plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to allow them to litigate their claims in this action rather than in the original arbitration proceedings initiated by AKT. In this action, one or more of the following parties: Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, Property Maintenance, Inc., 6pk Mason LLC, 6pk Liberty LLC, Teeny Turner LLC, S2 Fitness Enterprises, LLC, Soros & Associates, LLC, AdEdge Services Inc., Deanna Alfredo, Amanda Davis, Nisha Moeller, Samantha Cox, Suzanne Fischer, Nichole Soros, Michael Soros, Paul Dumas, Jodi Dumas and Laura Hannan (collectively, the "AKT Plaintiffs") assert that one or more of the following parties: AKT Franchise, LLC, AKT Franchise SPV, LLC, Assetco, Xponential, XFI, H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, Xponential Intermediate Holdings LLC, H&W Investco LP, H&W Investco II LP, LAG Fit, Inc., MGAG LLC, Anthony Geisler, Mark Grabowski, Melissa
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–18)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to the 2025 Bft Franchise Disclosure Document, the case number for the AKT Lawsuit is Case No. 30-2023-01345433- CU-AT-CXC. This lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange on August 30, 2023, and amended on November 20, 2023. The lawsuit involves former AKT franchisees and their owners who initiated the action after AKT started arbitration against them for breaches of their franchise agreements.
The AKT Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to litigate their claims in court rather than through the original arbitration initiated by AKT. The plaintiffs include Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, Property Maintenance, Inc., and several other entities and individuals. The defendants include AKT Franchise, LLC, AKT Franchise SPV, LLC, and various related entities and individuals associated with Xponential Fitness.
This litigation is significant for prospective Bft franchisees because it highlights potential disputes and legal actions involving the franchisor's parent company and related brands. It is important for potential franchisees to understand the nature of these disputes and their possible implications on the franchise system. Reviewing the details of the claims and the parties involved can provide insights into the legal and operational risks associated with investing in a Bft franchise.