Two Tampa Boxing Studios Changed Their Name. A Federal Judge Restricted What They Could Do Next.
On October 30, 2026, a federal judge in Tampa issued a preliminary injunction against two former Rumble boxing-fitness franchise studios, their owner, a former operating partner and the successor brand they launched, Temper Studios. For two years, none of them may run a competing fitness business at the old locations or within ten miles of them, or solicit the studios’ former members. It is not a martial arts case, and it is not a final judgment. It is still the clearest recent answer to a question franchisees, licensees and affiliated academy owners face: if you leave the system, what do you get to keep?
What happened in Tampa?
EB Rumble Franchising, LLC, which the court says has about 70 active franchises, five of them in Florida, sued its former Tampa franchisees, Three South Tampa LLC and One Hillsborough LLC, along with their owner (who personally guaranteed both agreements), a former operating partner, and Temper Studios LLC. The studios sat at 119 West Tyler Street downtown and 209 South Dale Mabry Highway in South Tampa. Both franchise agreements ran for ten years; the South Tampa agreement was signed in July 2024.
According to the record the court relied on, events moved quickly in July 2026:
- Around July 1, members received an email, sent through Rumble’s own member-communication system, announcing that “Rumble Tampa” was “becoming TEMPER” and that both locations would temporarily close on July 17.
- Temper Studios LLC was registered as a Florida company on July 16, with its principal address at the downtown studio.
- On July 18 former members received texts, sent through Rumble’s member-management system, promoting the new concept.
- On July 20 the franchisees told Rumble they had stopped operating on July 18. Rumble sent a termination notice on August 7.
The court also recorded Temper workouts held in the South Tampa parking lot in front of Rumble signage, LinkedIn profiles that still listed a current Rumble affiliation after the split, a Yelp listing carrying the Rumble marks, and a phone voicemail that answered “Thanks for calling Rumble Boxing Tampa” into early October.
What did the judge order?
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the Middle District of Florida granted Rumble’s motion for a preliminary injunction in part after an evidentiary hearing (Case No. 8:26-cv-2383-KKM-LSG, Doc. 55). For two years from the order, the enjoined parties may not:
- own, work in, lend to, lease space to or otherwise be involved with a competing business at or within ten miles of the former studios or any Rumble studio open or in development as of July 25, 2024;
- solicit business from customers of the former studios or any other Rumble studio;
- contact Rumble’s suppliers or vendors for a competitive purpose;
- disclose information in violation of the agreements’ restrictive covenants; or
- infringe Rumble’s trademarks.
The judge noted that the former franchisees “may operate a fitness or exercise business now, so long as they do so beyond ten miles of a Rumble studio.” In Tampa, that means beyond ten miles of their own two former studios, so reopening in the same buildings is off the table while the injunction stands.
Which arguments failed, and which one won?
The defendants asked the court to narrow the non-compete to “businesses using boxing inspired workouts.” The judge declined: the agreements defined a competing business as “any fitness or exercise business,” and the court found the two-year, ten-mile restriction reasonable and enforceable under Florida’s restrictive-covenant statute, Fla. Stat. § 542.335, protecting Rumble’s confidential information, customer data, goodwill and ability to re-franchise the territory.
The defendants argued the dispute was moot because signage had come down and the marks would not be used again. The court was “not persuaded,” noting that marks were still displayed at South Tampa as late as the day before the hearing. It also held that the agreements’ de-identification clause, which requires removing anything linking the business to Rumble, “encompasses” social media activity, and requires disassociating from tagged posts “to the extent possible.” A customer post tagged with both the new studio’s handle and #rumbleboxing was cited as evidence of confusion.
Rumble did not win everything. The court found it was not likely to prevail on its civil conspiracy claim, and it required no injunction bond, rejecting the defendants’ request for $100,000.
How final is this?
Not final. A preliminary injunction is a ruling that one side is likely to win, made to hold things in place while the case continues. The court’s findings are expressly preliminary, the order lasts “during the pendency of this action, or until further order of the Court,” and the defendants can still contest the merits. Its terms apply to these parties and these contracts. Nothing in it decides what any other franchise or affiliation agreement means.
Why should a martial arts school owner care?
Martial Arts Professional covered the franchise buyer’s side of this in Buying a Martial Arts Franchise? What to Verify Before You Sign. The Tampa ruling is the other end of the relationship, and it maps directly onto our industry. Franchised karate and taekwondo schools, licensed curriculum programs and BJJ academies under an affiliation or team agreement all reach the same moment: the owner wants out, has a building, a staff and a member base, and wants to keep teaching under a new name on Monday.
The order shows how a court may look at that moment. The fact pattern that hurt these defendants was not the decision to leave. It was announcing the new brand before the old relationship was resolved, using the franchisor’s own member system to tell members about it, holding workouts in front of the old signs, and leaving the old name on profiles, listings and the voicemail.
Before you announce a rebrand: eight questions to settle in writing
- What does my exit clause actually say? Find the post-termination non-compete: its radius, its length, and how it defines a “competing business.” “Any fitness or exercise business” is far wider than “karate school.”
- Can I stay at this address? Many agreements name the former premises specifically. Who holds the lease, and does the franchisor have a lease assignment or step-in right?
- Who owns the member list, and the software it lives in? If the billing and CRM account belongs to the system, using it to announce your new school is the act this court singled out.
- Who may contact members, and when? Non-solicitation clauses commonly run two years. Know what you may say, and to whom, before you say anything.
- Who controls the social accounts, website domain, Google Business Profile, Yelp listing and phone number? Settle the handover before the announcement, not after.
- What has to come down? Signage, window graphics, uniforms, certificates, email signatures, LinkedIn titles, tagged posts and voicemail greetings all carry the old marks.
- What can I take from the curriculum? Confidentiality clauses usually cover manuals, training and systems. Know what is yours and what you licensed.
- Is there a negotiated way out? The court noted Rumble had offered a waiver of the immediate non-compete obligations about three weeks before suing. A negotiated release, in writing, is almost always cheaper than a hearing.
For BJJ academy owners in particular: if you run under a team or association name, pull out the affiliation agreement now, while relations are good, and read the exit terms. Many owners have never read theirs.
Restrictive covenants are a matter of state law and vary widely. Florida enforces them by statute; California, for example, voids most employee and business non-competes. None of this is legal advice. Take your agreement to a franchise attorney licensed in your state before you act.
Frequently asked questions
Can a franchisor stop me from opening a new school in the same building?
If your agreement has a post-termination non-compete covering the former premises and it is enforceable in your state, a court can order exactly that. In the Tampa case, the injunction bars competing at or within ten miles of the former studios for two years.
Is changing the name and signs enough?
Not on these facts. The court found the de-identification obligation reaches social media, listings and similar associations, and it treated continued use of the old marks as a likely trademark violation.
Can I tell my members I am leaving?
It depends on your non-solicitation clause. In Tampa, using the franchisor’s member-management system to promote the new brand was central to the ruling. Get advice before any member communication.
Is this ruling final?
No. It is a preliminary injunction issued October 30, 2026, based on findings that Rumble is likely to succeed. The case continues.
Does this apply to BJJ affiliations and licensing programs?
The ruling applies only to these parties and these agreements. But any affiliation, license or team agreement with exit, non-compete or trademark terms raises the same questions, and the analysis will turn on its wording and your state’s law.
Sources, and what we could not confirm
This report is based on the court’s order: EB Rumble Franchising, LLC v. Three South Tampa LLC, et al., No. 8:26-cv-2383-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2026), Doc. 55, available via Justia. Wolters Kluwer’s IP Law Daily summarised the ruling on November 4, 2026. Every factual statement above about the defendants’ conduct is a preliminary finding of the court, not a final determination.
Consistent with this journal’s editorial policy of reporting final judgments rather than allegations, we have named the corporate parties and the court’s order but not the individual defendants. Martial Arts Professional has not contacted the parties; any response will be added here.
