Who are the plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit described in the Bft FDD?
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 Chordock, Elizabeth "Liz" Batterton Cooper, Alexander Cordova, Lance Freeman, Ryan Junk, Megan Moen, John Meloun, Sarah Luna, Tori Johnston, Justin LaCava, Bobby Tetsch, Brandon Wiles, Jason Losco, Brittney Holobinko, Amy Wehrkamp, Scott Svilich, Sarah Nolan, Emily Brown, Rachel Markovic, and Brenda Morris (collectively, the "AKT Defendants"): (a) violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California Franchise Investment Law, the Michigan Franchise Investment Law and the Florida Franchise Act by failing to provide a compliant Franchise Disclosure Document and failing to disclose certain information they contend was required to be disclosed by, and making certain statements they contend were incorrect and prohibited under, those laws some of which they contend were erroneous (the "Pre-Sale Disclosure Claims"); (b) fraudulently induced them to purchase franchises; (c) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (the "Covenant Claim"); (d) breached a purported agreement to provide certain financing; and (e) engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The AKT Plaintiffs seek rescission of various franchise agreements, actual and special damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. AKT Defendants have been served with the complaint, and each AKT Defendant has filed a demurrer to the complaint and/or a motion to quash the complaint.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 14–18)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Bft's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit, filed August 30, 2023, and amended on November 20, 2023, are referred to as the "AKT Plaintiffs." These plaintiffs include 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.
The lawsuit was initiated after AKT began arbitration against some of its former franchisees, seeking damages for breaches of their franchise agreements. In response, the AKT Plaintiffs filed this action, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to litigate their claims in court rather than through arbitration. They allege violations of pre-sale disclosure obligations under franchise laws, fraudulent inducement, breach of implied covenant of good faith, breach of a purported financing agreement, and unfair trade practices.
The AKT Plaintiffs are seeking rescission of their franchise agreements, actual and special damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The defendants in the case, referred to as the "AKT Defendants," have filed demurrers and motions to quash the complaint. This lawsuit is significant for prospective Bft franchisees as it highlights potential disputes and legal challenges that can arise between the franchisor and franchisees, particularly concerning disclosure obligations and franchise agreement terms.