A group of Blingle! franchisees and their owners brought a federal action against the franchisor, its parent organization, affiliated service businesses and several individuals in 2023. The case commonly associated with the BlingleLawsuit label is formally titled Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had misled them about services connected with the franchise relationship and asserted fraud, contract, consumer-protection and federal RICO claims. Those accusations remained allegations. On March 20, 2024, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg disposed of the case at summary judgment because the plaintiffs had not completed a contractual mediation prerequisite before commencing litigation.
That outcome enforced a dispute-resolution provision. It did not determine whether the underlying allegations were true or false, calculate damages or establish liability on any substantive claim.
The Federal Case at the Center of BlingleLawsuit
BlingleLawsuit is the name of this independent publication and a commonly used label for the dispute. It is not the official caption assigned by the federal court.
The formal case is Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al.. The court docket identifies it as a franchise-contract action filed under diversity jurisdiction.
Case at a Glance
| 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 |
| Principal business entities | Plaintiff franchisee LLCs; HPB Lighting LLC; SVHB Marketing LLC; HPB Wholesale Lighting LLC; HPB Call Center LLC; HPB Franchise Marketing LLC |
| Reported disposition | Summary judgment for defendants and dismissal on March 20, 2024, based on the uncompleted contractual mediation prerequisite |
| Status last checked | July 18, 2026 |
The September 7 date belongs to case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG. An earlier action involving the same dispute was filed on August 8, 2023, as case number 2:23-cv-03047-MSG and voluntarily withdrawn on August 23. The plaintiffs then filed the operative action under the later case number. This explains why some records refer to an August filing and others identify September 7 as the filing date.
Blingle!, HorsePower Brands and the Franchise Relationship
The official Blingle! website presents the brand as an outdoor-lighting business providing holiday, landscape, permanent, patio, event and commercial lighting services. It also advertises franchise opportunities.
The federal docket identifies HPB Lighting LLC as doing business under the Blingle! and Blingle Premier Lighting names. It identifies SVHB Marketing LLC as doing business as Horse Power Brands. Other named entities included HPB Wholesale Lighting LLC, HPB Call Center LLC and HPB Franchise Marketing LLC, each associated in the caption with a particular supply, call-center or franchise-marketing trade name.
The plaintiffs were businesses operating Blingle! franchise territories and individuals connected with those businesses. Their relationships with the franchisor were governed by franchise agreements containing operational obligations and a stepped dispute-resolution process.
That contractual setting is essential. The eventual dismissal arose from the procedure the agreements required before litigation—not from a judicial resolution of the parties’ broader disagreement about the franchise system.
Who Brought the Case and Who Was Named
The docket lists 20 plaintiffs: eight business entities and 12 individuals associated with them.
The franchisee businesses were MAW Lighting LLC, Matador Lighting LLC, SAPAJ LLC, L&V Design LLC, Premier Lighting of Oklahoma, DEJACK Lighting LLC, Now We’re Here LLC and 4B’s Lighting LLC. Several appeared under Blingle! location names, including North Charlotte, Tulsa, Overland Park and North Jersey.
The individual plaintiffs were Matthew and Amanda Waldron, Kyle Knox, Stephen Howell, Anna Mushyakova, Nick Sandridge, Dee Cooper, Devin Jackson, Heather Foidart, Mark Ivany, Jennifer Koepke and Bryon Koepke.
The corporate defendants were:
- SVHB Marketing LLC, doing business as Horse Power Brands;
- HPB Lighting LLC, doing business as Blingle! or Blingle Premier Lighting;
- HPB Wholesale Lighting LLC;
- HPB Call Center LLC; and
- 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 service entities and individuals involved. Referring to the proceeding simply as a “Blingle lawsuit” leaves out much of that structure.
What the Plaintiffs Alleged
According to the complaint and the available description of the dispute, the plaintiffs alleged that they were misled about services the defendants could provide within the franchise relationship. They sought to hold the franchise entities, related service businesses and named individuals responsible under several legal theories.
The asserted claims included fraud, breach of contract, state consumer-protection claims and claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint also sought relief connected with alleged misrepresentations and the performance of contractual obligations.
These were claims made by the plaintiffs, not factual determinations entered by the court. The docket further shows that the unredacted complaint and its exhibits were placed under seal by a September 20, 2023 order. That limits how confidently a public summary can describe evidence or details contained only in the sealed materials.
The available record does not justify treating statements about financial representations, operating costs, training, supplied services or affiliated vendors as proven. Each disputed proposition would have required evidence, applicable legal standards and an adjudication on the merits. That adjudication did not occur in this case.
How the Defendants Responded
The defendants disputed the plaintiffs’ right to proceed in court before completing the dispute-resolution procedure in the franchise agreements. Their central procedural position was that Section 18.3 required covered disputes to proceed through mediation first when the franchisor exercised its contractual option.
As summarized in a legal analysis of the March 2024 disposition, mediation demands had been initiated, but no actual mediation sessions occurred. The mediation matters were stayed while the parties exchanged informal offers, and the parties entered a tolling agreement.
The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants’ conduct and the tolling arrangement amounted to a waiver of the contractual mediation right. The defendants disagreed and sought dismissal.
Because the parties submitted material outside the pleadings, the court treated the procedural issue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 rather than deciding it solely as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
BlingleLawsuit Case Timeline
- August 8, 2023 — Earlier complaint filed: The plaintiffs initiated the dispute as case number 2:23-cv-03047-MSG in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- August 23, 2023 — Earlier action withdrawn: The plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew that complaint, ending the first docket without prejudice to the later filing.
- September 7, 2023 — Operative federal action filed: The plaintiffs filed case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG, which became the proceeding examined here.
- September 20, 2023 — Sealing order entered: Judge Goldberg granted the plaintiffs’ motion to keep the unredacted complaint and Exhibits A–D under seal unless the court ordered otherwise.
- Late 2023 — Defendants raised the mediation defense: The defendants relied on Section 18.3 of the franchise agreements and argued that litigation was premature because the required mediation process had not been completed.
- March 20, 2024 — Summary-judgment disposition entered: The court enforced the mediation prerequisite, entered summary judgment for the defendants on the procedural issue and dismissed the action.
- July 18, 2026 — Public status reviewed: No appeal, public refiling of the same claims, publicly documented settlement, completed mediation result or related arbitration was identified in the sources reviewed. This means no such development was found in those sources; it does not establish that private discussions or confidential proceedings never occurred.
Why the Court Dismissed the Case
Section 18.3 of the franchise agreements established a sequence for covered disputes. Before filing an action, a franchisee had to give detailed notice of the claim. The franchisor then had 30 days to decide whether to exercise its option to mediate.
If mediation was elected, the franchisee could not commence a court action until the mediation was terminated through one of the methods specified in the contract—such as a declaration by the mediator that further efforts were not worthwhile or a written declaration by the franchisor.
The defendants had elected mediation, but the process had not reached a contractually recognized endpoint when the operative lawsuit was filed. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had waived reliance on the clause through their subsequent conduct. The court rejected that position for purposes of the procedural dispute and enforced the contractual prerequisite.
The submission of evidence beyond the complaint mattered procedurally. It converted the issue into one resolved under Rule 56, the federal summary-judgment rule. The practical consequence was termination of this federal action before the underlying franchise claims were tried.
The decision concerned the language and history of these particular agreements. It should not be turned into a universal rule about all pre-litigation mediation requirements, because contract wording, governing law, waiver evidence and procedural circumstances can differ. Those distinctions are central to understanding pre-litigation mediation requirements responsibly.
What the Dismissal Did—and Did Not—Decide
The court decided that the contractual precondition to litigation had not been satisfied and that the defendants could enforce it in this proceeding. The decision allowed the defendants, including covered individual defendants treated as beneficiaries of the relevant contractual language, to rely on the agreed dispute-resolution process.
The court did not conduct a trial. It did not determine whether each factual statement in the complaint was accurate, decide whether the defendants had made actionable misrepresentations or calculate whether any plaintiff suffered legally compensable losses.
Nor did the dismissal establish that the defendants were “cleared” of every accusation. A finding that litigation was commenced before a contractual prerequisite had been completed is different from a finding that a plaintiff cannot prove fraud, breach of contract, a statutory violation or damages.
The summary-judgment label can cause confusion. Summary judgment often resolves substantive claims, but here it was used to resolve the mediation-precondition issue after the parties presented material outside the pleadings. The controlling question was whether the action could proceed at that stage, not whether every underlying allegation was true or false.
What the Public Record Can Establish
The record proves that complaints were filed, identifies the parties and claims placed before the court, and shows how the federal action ended. It does not give every document the same evidentiary weight.
A complaint records what plaintiffs allege and the relief they request. Filing it does not prove its factual assertions.
A motion records what a party asks the court to do and the grounds offered in support. It remains advocacy unless and until the court adopts a position.
A docket entry verifies that a procedural event occurred. A summary entry may not contain all qualifications found in the underlying document.
An order or memorandum establishes what the judge decided. Its language and procedural context should control over shortened online descriptions.
A dismissal establishes the disposition and the court’s stated basis. Its meaning should not be expanded into findings the court never made.
Online reviews and complaints may point researchers toward issues worth checking, but they are not substitutes for pleadings, evidence or judicial findings.
A Franchise Disclosure Document is a regulated disclosure document containing information supplied for a franchise offering. It can provide relevant business, fee, litigation and franchisee information, but it is not itself a judicial determination about a disputed case.
These distinctions are especially important when verifying a federal court docket because the headline description of an event may omit the reasoning or procedural limitations contained in the filing.
Relevance for Franchise Disclosure and Due Diligence
The FTC’s Franchise Disclosure Document guidance explains that an FDD contains 23 required items and generally must be supplied at least 14 days before a prospective franchisee is asked to sign a contract or pay money.
Several items can help place a dispute in context:
- Item 3 addresses specified litigation history involving the franchisor and certain associated people.
- Items 5–7 address initial fees, continuing fees and estimated initial investment.
- Item 11 describes matters such as advertising, training and assistance.
- Item 19 contains any financial performance representation the franchisor elects to make.
- Item 20 supplies information about current and former franchisees.
The franchise agreement should also be examined separately for notice, mediation, arbitration, forum, governing-law and fee provisions. The FTC’s guidance is a starting point for documentary review, not a recommendation to purchase or reject a particular franchise.
How to Check the Current Case Record
Search case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG in PACER or through the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s electronic filing system. Searching the number is generally more reliable than relying on a shortened party name.
A docket summary should be treated as an index. Open the underlying complaint, motion, response, memorandum, order or judgment whenever the exact language matters. For this case, the March 20, 2024 disposition is associated with ECF No. 57 in later federal-court references.
Researchers should also search for:
- a notice of appeal or separate appellate docket;
- a later complaint involving the same parties and claims;
- an order reopening the case;
- a publicly filed settlement notice; and
- a related proceeding identified through party-name or nationwide searches.
Always record the date of the search. A statement that no later proceeding was identified is only as current and complete as the sources checked.
What the Record Ultimately Shows
The operative federal case was filed on September 7, 2023, by Blingle! franchisee businesses and their owners against HPB Lighting, SVHB Marketing, affiliated entities and named individuals. The plaintiffs asserted serious contractual and statutory claims, but those claims remained allegations.
On March 20, 2024, the court enforced the franchise agreements’ mediation prerequisite and ended the action at summary judgment. The disposition resolved whether the plaintiffs could maintain that lawsuit without first completing the required process. It did not resolve the factual truth of their underlying accusations.
The publicly accessible record is also incomplete in practical respects: unredacted complaint materials were sealed, mediation communications may be confidential and no later public resolution was identified in the sources reviewed through July 18, 2026. Any account of the dispute should therefore remain tied to the complaint, docket and court’s actual procedural ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is BlingleLawsuit the official name of the federal case?
No. BlingleLawsuit is the publication name and a commonly used label. The formal case is Waldron et al. v. SVHB Marketing LLC d/b/a Horse Power Brands et al.
What is the formal case number?
The operative action is case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. An earlier action was filed as 2:23-cv-03047-MSG and voluntarily withdrawn before the operative complaint was filed.
Did the court decide whether the allegations were true?
No. The court enforced a contractual mediation prerequisite. It did not conduct a trial or enter findings establishing the truth or falsity of the underlying franchise allegations.
Why did the mediation provision matter?
The agreements restricted franchisees from commencing covered litigation after the franchisor elected mediation and before that process ended in a contractually specified way. The court concluded that the prerequisite had not been completed.
Where can the current docket be checked?
The docket can be searched through PACER using case number 2:23-cv-03485-MSG. Readers should compare docket summaries with the underlying filings and check for later district-court or appellate activity.
BlingleLawsuit is an independent legal-information publication and is not affiliated with Blingle!, HorsePower Brands or any party discussed in this article. This content is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.