Who are the plaintiffs in the Nickle Acquisition, LLC lawsuit, and what franchise brands do they operate besides Body20?
Body20 Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
This action was filed by a CycleBar® and BFT® franchisee and its owners, Nickle Acquisition LLC, Michael Nickle, and Jana Nickle, (collectively, the "Nickle Plaintiffs") against (i) BFT Franchise Holdings, LLC and BFT Franchise SPV, LLC; (ii) CycleBar Franchising, LLC and CycleBar Franchising SPV, LLC; (iii) the Xponential Entities and Xponential Holdings LLC; (iv) H&W Investco LP and H&W Investco II LP; (v)
LAG Fit, Inc.; (vi) MGAG LLC; (vii) Anthony Geisler, Mark Grabowski, Trevor Lucas, Ryan Junk, Lou Defrancisco, Sarah Luna, Lance Freeman, and Kristie Lavasile; and (viii) Navitas Credit Corp. (collectively, (i) through (viii), the "Nickle Defendants"). The Nickle Plaintiffs allege that one or more of the Nickle Defendants (a) violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California 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 Franchise Agreement; (d) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (e) made fraudulent omissions. The Nickle 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.
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 Nickle Acquisition, LLC lawsuit are Nickle Acquisition LLC, Michael Nickle, and Jana Nickle. The lawsuit, filed against Xponential Fitness, Inc., et al., involves CycleBar® and BFT® franchises. Therefore, in addition to Body20, the plaintiffs operate CycleBar® and BFT® franchises.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated pre-sale disclosure obligations under the California Franchise Investment Law, fraudulently induced the plaintiffs to invest in franchises, breached the Franchise Agreement, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and made fraudulent omissions. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the enforcement of the mandatory arbitration provisions in their franchise agreements, rescission of their franchise agreements, actual and special damages, and attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.
It is important for a prospective Body20 franchisee to be aware of any ongoing litigation involving the franchisor or related entities, as it can provide insights into potential risks or challenges associated with the franchise system. While this lawsuit does not directly involve Body20, it does involve Xponential Fitness, Inc., which has been named in other lawsuits described in the FDD. Understanding the nature of these disputes can help a potential franchisee make a more informed decision.