Who are the plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit described in the Body20 FDD?
Body20 Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Dance Fitness Michigan LLC, et al. v. AKT Franchise, LLC, et al., filed August 30, 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 owners, including 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") against (i) AKT Franchise, LLC and AKT Franchise SPV, LLC; (ii) Xponential, Xponential Fitness, Inc., XPOF Assetco, LLC, and Xponential Intermediate Holdings, LLC (collectively, the "Xponential Entities"); (iii) H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, H&W Investco LP, and H&W Investco II LP (collectively, the "H&W Entities"); (iv) LAG Fit, Inc.; (v) MGAG LLC; and (vi) 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, (i) through (vi), the "AKT Defendants") after AKT Franchise, LLC initiated an arbitration against and sought damages from certain of them for breaches of their franchise agreements. The AKT Plaintiffs alleged that one or more of the AKT Defendants (a) violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California Franchise Investment Law, the Florida Franchise Act, and the Michigan Franchise Investment Law by failing to provide a compliant Franchise Disclosure Document, making statements that they contend were erroneous or prohibited, and failing to disclose information that they contend necessitated disclosure; (b) fraudulently induced them to invest in franchises; (c) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (d) breached a purported agreement to provide certain financing; and (e) engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. The AKT Plaintiffs seek (1) declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforcement of the mandatory arbitration provisions in their franchise agreements; (2) rescission of their franchise agreements; (3) actual and special damages; and (4) attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The AKT Defendants have all filed a demurrer to the complaint.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 13–17)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Body20's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the plaintiffs in the AKT Lawsuit are certain former AKT® franchisees and their owners. The document specifically lists 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 as the plaintiffs, collectively referred to as the "AKT Plaintiffs".
The AKT Lawsuit was filed against AKT Franchise, LLC and AKT Franchise SPV, LLC; Xponential, Xponential Fitness, Inc., XPOF Assetco, LLC, and Xponential Intermediate Holdings, LLC; H&W Franchise Intermediate Holdings LLC, H&W Investco LP, and H&W Investco II LP; LAG Fit, Inc.; MGAG LLC; and 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.
The AKT Plaintiffs allege that the AKT Defendants violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under franchise laws, fraudulently induced them to invest in franchises, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breached a purported agreement to provide certain financing, and engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices. They are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, rescission of their franchise agreements, actual and special damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. The AKT Defendants have filed a demurrer to the complaint.