BlingleLawsuit refers to a documented federal franchise dispute involving several Blingle! franchisee businesses, their owners, Horse Power Brands-related entities and named individuals.
The formal proceeding was Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03485-MSG, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on September 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs asserted fraud, contract, consumer-protection and federal RICO claims arising from the franchise relationship. These claims were allegations presented by the plaintiffs; they were not established as facts through a trial.
On March 20, 2024, the court disposed of the action at summary judgment because the plaintiffs had not completed the contractual mediation process required before litigation. The ruling enforced a dispute-resolution provision. It did not determine whether the underlying allegations were true or false, establish liability or award damages.
Verified Federal Case Details
The public federal docket identifies the proceeding as a franchise-contract action filed under diversity jurisdiction.
| Case detail | Verified information |
| Formal case name | Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al. |
| Case number | 2:23-cv-03485-MSG |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Presiding judge | Mitchell S. Goldberg |
| Filing date | September 7, 2023 |
| Nature of suit | Contract: Franchise |
| Plaintiffs | Eight franchisee businesses and 12 associated individuals |
| Defendants | Horse Power Brands and Blingle!-related entities, affiliated service companies and named individuals |
| Reported disposition | Summary judgment for the defendants and dismissal on March 20, 2024, based on the contractual mediation prerequisite |
| Source-review date | August 1, 2026 |
The case name, filing date, court, judge, parties and nature of suit can be checked through the public docket summary. Because third-party docket summaries may not contain every later filing, PACER remains the appropriate source for checking the complete current federal record.
Why Two Different Filing Dates Appear Online
Some accounts identify August 8, 2023, as the filing date, while the operative docket lists September 7, 2023. These dates relate to two separate case numbers.
An earlier action involving the dispute was filed on August 8, 2023, as Case No. 2:23-cv-03047-MSG. That proceeding was voluntarily withdrawn on August 23, 2023. The plaintiffs subsequently filed the operative action as Case No. 2:23-cv-03485-MSG on September 7, 2023.
Therefore, September 7, 2023, is the filing date that should be used when discussing the operative federal case.
The Parties and Franchise Relationship
The plaintiffs included eight franchisee businesses:
- MAW Lighting LLC
- Matador Lighting LLC
- SAPAJ LLC
- L&V Design LLC
- Premium Lighting of Oklahoma LLC
- DEJACK Lighting LLC
- Now We’re Here LLC
- 4B’s Lighting LLC
The 12 individual plaintiffs were Matthew Waldron, Amanda Waldron, Kyle Knox, Stephen Howell, Anna Mushyakova, Nick Sandridge, Dee Cooper, Devin Jackson, Heather Foidart, Mark Ivany, Jennifer Koepke and Bryon Koepke.
The business defendants included:
- SVHB Marketing LLC, doing business as Horse Power Brands
- HPB Lighting LLC, doing business as Blingle Premier Lighting and Blingle!
- HPB Wholesale Lighting LLC
- HPB Call Center LLC
- HPB Franchise Marketing LLC
The docket also named Zachery Beutler, Joshua Skolnick, Anthony Hulbert, Mike Marlow, Travis Miller, David Kimura, Luke Schwartz, Scott Reiss and Thomas “Turp” Ricketts Jr.
The length of the caption reflects the number of franchisee businesses, affiliated entities and individuals involved. Referring to the proceeding only as a “Blingle lawsuit” can obscure that broader structure.
What the Plaintiffs Alleged
According to the complaint and publicly available descriptions of the dispute, the plaintiffs alleged that they had been misled about services associated with the franchise relationship.
Their asserted legal theories included:
- Fraud
- Breach of contract
- State consumer-protection violations
- Claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
The complaint represented the plaintiffs’ allegations and requested relief. Filing a complaint does not establish that its factual assertions are true.
The docket also shows that the unredacted complaint and its attachments were ordered to remain under seal. This limits the amount of underlying material available for independent public examination.
Claims concerning financial representations, costs, training, support, supplied services or affiliated vendors should therefore not be reported as proven facts. Their truth would have required an evidentiary determination that did not occur in this federal case.
How the Defendants Responded
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs could not proceed in court before completing the dispute-resolution process contained in the franchise agreements.
Section 18.3 reportedly required covered disputes to be submitted to mediation first when the franchisor exercised its contractual option. The agreements also defined how that mediation process could be terminated before litigation commenced.
The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants’ conduct and a tolling arrangement amounted to a waiver of the mediation requirement. The defendants rejected that position and sought dismissal.
Because the parties relied on material outside the complaint, the procedural question was addressed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. This is why the disposition is described as summary judgment even though the underlying fraud, contract and statutory claims were not adjudicated on their merits.
A published legal analysis of the decision similarly reports that the case was dismissed at summary judgment for failure to complete the mediation prerequisite. It also explains that mediation demands had been initiated, but no actual mediation session occurred before the lawsuit proceeded. See Fox Rothschild’s analysis of the ruling.
BlingleLawsuit Case Timeline
- August 8, 2023: The plaintiffs filed the earlier action as Case No. 2:23-cv-03047-MSG.
- August 23, 2023: The earlier action was voluntarily withdrawn.
- September 7, 2023: The operative federal action, Case No. 2:23-cv-03485-MSG, was filed.
- September 20, 2023: The court granted a motion to keep the unredacted complaint and its attachments under seal.
- Late 2023: The defendants invoked the contractual mediation requirement and challenged the plaintiffs’ ability to proceed in court.
- March 20, 2024: The court resolved the mediation-precondition issue at summary judgment and dismissed the federal action.
- August 1, 2026: Publicly accessible sources were reviewed for this article. Readers requiring the latest docket activity should verify the case directly through PACER.
Why the Court Dismissed the Action
The franchise agreements established a stepped process for resolving covered disputes. Before commencing legal action, a franchisee had to provide detailed notice of the dispute. The franchisor then had a specified period in which to elect mediation.
Once mediation was elected, litigation could not begin until the mediation process ended in one of the ways recognized by the agreement.
The defendants had elected mediation, but the process had not reached a contractually recognized endpoint when the operative case was filed. The plaintiffs argued that subsequent conduct had waived the defendants’ right to rely on the provision. The court enforced the contractual prerequisite and ended the action.
The ruling concerned these agreements and their particular procedural history. It should not be treated as a universal rule governing every mediation provision. Contract language, applicable law, waiver evidence and case circumstances can produce different results. Our guide to mediation clauses in franchise agreements explains those distinctions in greater detail.
What the Dismissal Did—and Did Not—Decide
The court determined that the contractual condition required before litigation had not been completed. It did not conduct a trial on the plaintiffs’ substantive accusations.
The dismissal did not:
- Establish that the alleged misrepresentations occurred
- Establish that the allegations were false
- Determine that fraud or a RICO violation had been proven
- Calculate losses or damages
- Resolve every factual dispute between the parties
- Produce a merits verdict for either side on the underlying allegations
The phrase “summary judgment” can be misunderstood. Summary judgment sometimes resolves the substance of a claim, but here it addressed whether the lawsuit could proceed before the required mediation process was completed.
Calling the defendants “cleared of all allegations” would therefore overstate the decision. Saying that the lawsuit proved wrongdoing would be equally inaccurate.
For a wider explanation of procedural and merits outcomes, see Lawsuit Dismissal: Procedure, Prejudice and Merits.
How Different Court Documents Should Be Read
Court documents do not all carry the same evidentiary weight.
Complaint
A complaint records the plaintiffs’ allegations and requested relief. Its filing does not prove the allegations.
Motion
A motion states what a party wants the court to do and presents arguments supporting that request. Those arguments remain advocacy unless adopted by the court.
Docket entry
A docket entry confirms that a procedural event or filing occurred. A shortened docket description may not contain every qualification found in the underlying document.
Court order or memorandum
An order establishes what the judge decided. Its precise language, scope and procedural context should control over summaries published elsewhere.
Dismissal
A dismissal establishes that a case ended and identifies the court’s stated basis. It should not be expanded into findings the court did not make.
These distinctions are central to verifying federal lawsuit records accurately.
Franchise Disclosure and Due Diligence
A federal lawsuit is only one source of information relevant to franchise due diligence.
The Federal Trade Commission states that a Franchise Disclosure Document contains 23 required categories of information. Prospective franchisees generally must receive it at least 14 days before being asked to sign a binding agreement or pay money to the franchisor or an affiliate. These requirements are explained in the FTC Franchise Rule and its consumer guide to buying a franchise.
Relevant FDD sections may include:
- Item 3: Specified litigation history
- Items 5–7: Initial fees, continuing fees and estimated initial investment
- Item 11: Advertising, training, systems and assistance
- Item 19: Any financial performance representation the franchisor chooses to make
- Item 20: Information concerning current and former franchisees
The current FDD should be examined alongside the franchise agreement. Particular attention should be given to notice, mediation, arbitration, governing-law, forum-selection and fee provisions.
This information should support careful independent review, not an automatic decision to purchase or reject a franchise.
How to Verify the Current Record
Search Case No. 2:23-cv-03485-MSG through PACER’s official case-search service. PACER states that court-specific information is updated as filings are entered, while its nationwide case index is updated daily.
When the exact meaning of a development matters:
- Confirm that the case number and court are correct.
- Treat the docket summary as an index.
- Open the relevant complaint, motion, response, memorandum, order or judgment.
- Check for any appeal, later complaint, reopening order or related proceeding.
- Record the date on which the search was performed.
The absence of a development from a limited public-source search does not prove that private mediation, confidential negotiations or other non-public activity never occurred.
What the Record Ultimately Establishes
The operative federal action was filed on September 7, 2023, by eight franchisee businesses and 12 individuals against Horse Power Brands and Blingle!-related entities, affiliated businesses and named individuals.
The plaintiffs asserted fraud, contract, consumer-protection and RICO claims. Those claims remained allegations because the federal action ended before they were adjudicated on their merits.
On March 20, 2024, the court enforced the contractual mediation prerequisite and dismissed the action at summary judgment. The decision resolved whether the plaintiffs could maintain that proceeding at that stage. It did not determine the truth or falsity of their underlying accusations.
A responsible account of BlingleLawsuit should remain tied to the docket, the parties’ attributed positions and the court’s actual procedural ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is BlingleLawsuit the official name of the case?
No. BlingleLawsuit is the publication name and a shorthand label associated with the dispute. The formal case is Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al.
What is the operative case number?
The operative case number is 2:23-cv-03485-MSG. An earlier action was filed as 2:23-cv-03047-MSG and voluntarily withdrawn.
Did the court decide that the allegations were true?
No. The court did not conduct a trial or enter findings establishing the underlying allegations.
Did the dismissal prove that every allegation was false?
No. The dismissal concerned the incomplete contractual mediation prerequisite, not a merits determination concerning every allegation.
Why was summary judgment used?
The parties presented material outside the pleadings while disputing the mediation requirement. That caused the procedural question to be addressed under Rule 56.
Where can readers check the latest docket?
Readers can search PACER using Case No. 2:23-cv-03485-MSG and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
BlingleLawsuit is an independent legal-information publication. It is not affiliated with Blingle!, Horse Power Brands or any party discussed in this article. This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice.
