Dan Fleyshman has been named as a defendant in a string of civil lawsuits stretching from 2007 to 2026, and the most recent Dan Fleyshman lawsuit — a federal contract case brought by David and Patricia Carlin — resulted in a clerk’s default against him and six of his companies in June 2026. The disputes span contract fraud claims tied to his mentorship program, a Riverside County enforcement action against his Temecula animal facility that produced a six-figure judgment, and older matters connected to the publicly traded beverage company he co-founded as a teenager.
Carlin v. Fleyshman: The Active Federal Case
David and Patricia Carlin filed a contract dispute against Fleyshman on March 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint names Fleyshman personally along with six associated entities: Blacksite Ranch LLC, Cards and Coffee, Inc., Elevator Studio, LLC, More Franchises, LLC, Wyld Jungle LLC, and WYLD Products, LLC. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick.1PACER Monitor. Patricia Carlin Et Al. v. Dan Fleyshman Et Al.
None of the defendants answered. The Carlins applied for entry of default on May 28, 2026, and the Clerk entered default against all seven defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a) on June 2, 2026. No default judgment amount had been set as of mid-June 2026, with a hearing on the default applications scheduled for June 30, 2026.1PACER Monitor. Patricia Carlin Et Al. v. Dan Fleyshman Et Al. The specific contract at issue has not been publicly detailed, but the mix of entities named reaches across his animal facility, his social media agency, and a product line.
Ortsac Holdings LLC v. Fleyshman
A separate federal complaint was filed against Fleyshman on October 17, 2025, by Ortsac Holdings, LLC in the Central District of California. The public docket entry reflects the initial complaint but does not lay out the allegations or any later rulings.2PACER Monitor. Ortsac Holdings LLC v. Dan Fleyshman, Complaint
The Wyld Jungle Enforcement Action
Fleyshman built an animal facility called The Wyld Jungle on his 26-acre Temecula property, legally known as Black Site Ranch, in 2022. Run in partnership with social media influencer Michael Holston, the operation housed over 200 animals and began offering private tours in February 2023, with pricing that ran from $99 for a basic tour up to $499 for an all-day “Jungle Maniacs” experience.3PETA. Request to Investigate and Take Enforcement Action Against Wyld Jungle LLC
Riverside County opened a code enforcement case in November 2022, finding that the facility was operating as an illegal “menagerie” in the Wine-Country Equestrian Zone. The county served a Notice of Violation and Order to Abate Public Nuisance with a May 2023 compliance deadline that was not met, and PETA filed complaints with the USDA reporting that the facility lacked a federal Animal Welfare Act exhibitor license.3PETA. Request to Investigate and Take Enforcement Action Against Wyld Jungle LLC
The county issued a cease-and-desist order in April 2024 and filed suit against Black Site Ranch in September 2024. In April 2025, a California Superior Court entered a final default judgment in favor of the county, ordering Black Site Ranch to pay $179,364.34 in civil penalties. Safety at the facility had also drawn attention: at least four employees were reportedly injured by ostriches, and an alpaca named Elvis injured four additional employees before being rehomed.4PETA. The Wyld Jungle
Banerjee v. 100MME LLC and Fleyshman
Entrepreneur Jeet Banerjee sued Fleyshman and business partner Joel Marion in Los Angeles County Superior Court in October 2020 over their “100MME” mentorship program. Banerjee’s amended complaint alleged that the defendants fraudulently induced entrepreneurs to invest $100,000 each by promising exclusive coaching, high-end events, guaranteed returns, and a refund right. The suit brought seven causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law.5Unicourt. Jeet Banerjee vs. 100MME LLC Et Al.
The defendants argued that Banerjee lacked standing because the $100,000 in fees had been paid by two separate business entities rather than by Banerjee personally. After multiple discovery disputes over financial records, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement on June 14, 2022, and Banerjee dismissed the case with prejudice on June 30, 2022. Settlement terms were not publicly disclosed.5Unicourt. Jeet Banerjee vs. 100MME LLC Et Al.
Pie Investors LLC v. Branden Hampton Et Al.
Fleyshman was named as a defendant in an April 2017 contractual fraud case in Los Angeles County Superior Court captioned Pie Investors LLC et al. v. Branden Hampton et al. He and Branden Hampton, along with Leon Fleyshman, filed a cross-complaint against Larry Beckwith, Jay Rifkin, Paul Fiore, and Ryan Blair. The defendants moved to compel arbitration in September 2017, and no final resolution was reflected on the docket as of late 2017.6Plainsite. Pie Investors LLC Et Al. v. Branden Hampton Et Al.
Suits Tied to Who’s Your Daddy, Inc.
Fleyshman co-founded Who’s Your Daddy in November 2001 with Edon Moyal. It began as a San Diego clothing line, later pivoted to beverages, and traded publicly on the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker WYDY.7Kara Goldin. Dan Fleyshman The company drew several lawsuits during its public years.
The largest was a sponsorship contract dispute with Sacks Motorsports. An arbitrator awarded Sacks $1,790,000 in 2007. The company appealed and lost, and a judgment was entered in federal court. The matter was not resolved until May 2012, when the company settled by issuing Sacks 66,667 shares of restricted common stock in full satisfaction of the judgment. Because the stock was worth far less than the original award, the company recorded a gain of roughly $1.57 million on the extinguishment of that debt.8SEC. FITT Highway Products 10-K
Two other suits were pending in 2007: one over a $222,352 note payable, and another in San Diego Superior Court seeking $288,000, company stock, and a percentage of revenues from a subsidiary.9SEC. Who’s Your Daddy, Inc. Form SB-2 In January 2012, the law firm Oswald & Yap sued the company, its CEO, and its operating partner FITT for $40,734 in unpaid legal fees. That case settled in January 2013 when the firm dropped its claims in exchange for the defendants not seeking reimbursement of their own defense costs.8SEC. FITT Highway Products 10-K