Court Documents in the ongoing SLAPP* attack conceived, filed and sustained by Doher Joseph Ferris (D. Joseph Ferris) and Klehr, Harrison Harver Branzburg LLP for DonutNV Franchising Inc. Publisher Sean Kelly and franchise watchdog and discussion website UnhappyFranchisee.Com is represented by attorney Brandon Harter, Lancaster Tech Law, with support from Paula Knudson Burky, Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.
Signed and certified as true and correct by DonutNV CEO Alex Gingold, the complaint alleges that Kelly, a 38 year franchise industry veteran & publisher of UnhappyFranchisee.com for 20 years, is an extortionist who publishes defamatory content then demands payment from franchisors, including DonutNV. It claims Kelly made the following statements, which they claim are untrue and defamatory: That nearly half DonutNV franchisees are failing, that franchisees lives are being destroyed, that one franchisee was struggling to put presents for her kids under the Christmas tree while Alex & Amanda Gingold were flying to the Bahamas and driving G-Wagons, and that the Gingolds are victims of bad advisors.
The publisher of this site has never spoken to Alex of Amanda Gingold nor received a return email to his many offers to publish clarifications or rebuttals at no charge. In a disingenuously affable phone call from D. Joseph Ferris (“We’re just two guys talking”), Sean Kelly stated directly that he does not take down content for money and the path to good exposure was to address the problems with their franchisees. Except for suggesting they “may have” been victims of bad advice, all of the allegedly defamatory statements were direct quotes from franchisees.
Also read: Free Speech Remains a LIE in Pennsylvania
For our ongoing expose, see The DonutNV Franchise Report (Index)
| Date | Document | File Link |
| 2025.02.03 | DonutNV Complaint | DonutNV Complaint |
| 2025.04.04 | Def Answer with New Matter and Counterclaim | |
| 2025.04.12 | DEF REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S NEW MATTER TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM | Reply to DonutNV New Matter to Defendant’s Counterclaim |
| 2025.04.24 | PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM | DonutNV ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM |
| 2025-04-28 | PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS | DonutNV FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS |
| 2025-04-08 | PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS | DONUTNV FIRST REQUEST FOR INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS |
| Documents will be uploaded as time permits | ||
| 2025-07-18 | PROTECTIVE ORDER | PROTECTIVE ORDER |
| 2025-08-18 | Judge Sponaugle Order | Judge Sponaugle Order |
It’s my hope that free speech and anti-SLAPP advocates will admit that we left the job half-done and rally their energy and resources to activate the protections of a bi-partisan law that’s already in place.
I am available to share my story and what I’ve learned as a target of bullying, threats and lawsuits over the past two decades or to otherwise contribute to efforts to address this issue.
Or if you wish to share YOUR experience as a SLAPP target…
Email me at UnhappyFranchisee[at]Gmail[dot]Com
Sean Kelly, Publisher, SLAPP Defendant
My testimony in support of PA anti-SLAPP legislation in 2014 is still visible on the PA State Republicans website, and here: Sean Kelly Letter in Support of PA anti-SLAPP Law
* Here and elsewhere, I refer a previous lawsuit (Golob v. Kelly) as a SLAPP, which reflects a judge’s ruling to that effect. When I refer to my current lawsuit (DonutNV v. Kelly) no such judicial determination has been made. My reference to this ongoing lawsuit as a SLAPP reflects my own strongly held opinion that this lawsuit is meritless, was filed primarily to deprive me of my protected right to free expression and would be ruled as such by any competent arbiter. I’m neither an attorney or a judge nor am I a legal scholar. You may come to your own conclusion by reviewing both the allegations in the complaint and my extensive research and reporting, available here: The DonutNV Franchise Report (Index)
Tags: SLAPP, Ani-SLAPP, Pennsylvania anti‑SLAPP, UPEPA Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania free speech law, PA anti‑SLAPP law, PA Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, DonutNV, DonutNV franchise, DonutNV lawsuit, DonutNV v Kelly, Unhappy Franchisee lawsuit, Doher Joseph Ferris, D. Joseph Ferris, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzberg LLP, attorney William Clements, Christopher J. Leavell, Institute for Free Speech, Reporters Committee for Freedom of Speech, Paula Knudsen Burke, FIRE, ACLU, Brandon Harter, Lancaster Tech Law, PA Supreme Court, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Sean Kelly, UnhappyFranchisee, Judge Sponaugle, Lancaster Court of Common Pleas
Free Speech is a LIE in Pennsylvania… but it doesn’t have to be. Currently, any…
That JDog Brands and Julip Run Capital have been allowed to target Veterans & military…
Ethical Franchise Brokers can get a competitive advantage on their lax or unethical competitors by…
Franchise scams are evolving – and so is the fight against them. The Unhappy Franchisee Ai…
Franchise sellers promote franchise “ownership” as a way to “Own Your Own Business!” and “Be…
In videos, ads and lead-generation pages across the Internet, DonutNV Franchising, Inc., Franchise Fastlane & other…