PHOENIX, Ore. (Sep. 6, 2026) — A dispute between local food business Curbside King and The Phoodery has escalated publicly after the Phoenix food hall said it terminated Curbside King’s lease for nonpayment, while Curbside King disputed that explanation and accused the property’s owners of creating a reason to remove the business.
The competing accounts center on rent, common-area maintenance fees and other expenses under Curbside King’s lease at The Phoodery, located at 208 N. Main St. in Phoenix.
In a statement posted online, The Phoodery said it recently terminated one of its restaurant leases because of unpaid rent. The business said the tenant was given the full grace period provided under the contract but ultimately failed to pay outstanding amounts.
“The Phoodery does not take a percentage of restaurant sales,” the business said, adding that restaurants share capped common operating expenses, including utilities, janitorial services, bussers and entertainment. According to The Phoodery, each restaurant pays one-seventh of those expenses, while the taphouse pays two-sevenths.
The Phoodery also said restaurant partners meet twice a month and have a voice and vote on shared expenses, events and other decisions.
Curbside King offered a sharply different account.
The business said it paid $1,900 per month in rent during its first year before the amount increased to $2,100, and said it also paid every common-area maintenance fee required under its agreement, which Curbside King said was capped at $3,400.
Curbside King said the amount at issue was an additional $1,300 that the business contends was not part of its contractual obligations.
The business said its rent and CAM payments totaled approximately $5,500 during the month in question and that it never agreed to pay an additional amount beyond what was established in its contract.
Curbside King also disputed the characterization that it had been evicted for failing to pay rent.
“We were not evicted for rent,” the business said in its statement, alleging that Phoodery owners Eric and Kyle were unclear about which charges were contractually required.
Curbside King further alleged that Kyle offered the business $10,000 to leave quietly and that it was asked to sign another nondisclosure agreement. Curbside King said it rejected the offer and agreement.
The business also alleged it had previously faced threats of eviction over several other issues, including advertising drinks for another struggling business, displaying a sign saying it could not sell drinks for that business, an insurance certificate that Curbside King said had already been provided, and closing 40 minutes early after selling out during a shift.
Curbside King said it had already provided six months’ notice that it intended to leave and would have vacated the property in December.
The business said it believes it would have prevailed had the dispute proceeded to court.
The Phoodery said it has documentation supporting its account and would address the matter through appropriate channels if necessary. It declined to engage in what it described as an ongoing social media dispute.
Previous disputes at The Phoodery
The latest dispute comes after The Phoodery has faced criticism and turnover among its restaurant tenants over the structure and cost of operating at the food hall.
The Phoodery opened in 2024 as a multi-vendor food hall featuring independent restaurant operators and a central taphouse. At its October 2024 ribbon-cutting, owners Kyle Taylor and Eric Herron were identified as being involved in the operation.
In 2025, several former or departing vendors publicly raised concerns about expenses and the management of the property. Online discussions at the time included allegations that common-area and maintenance charges had increased substantially beyond what some vendors expected.
Those claims were widely discussed online, although individual allegations and the terms of particular vendor agreements have not all been independently verified.
By late 2025, management of the property had changed. Subsequent public discussions about The Phoodery have distinguished between management and ownership, with commenters noting that while day-to-day management changed, the ownership remained associated with the property. Those comments are not independent confirmation of the underlying allegations.
The controversy also included reports in 2025 of eviction notices being served to food-hall operators. Public discussions at the time described multiple businesses leaving the property and raised questions about the financial structure of the food-hall model.
The Phoodery’s current website describes the business as a community dining destination featuring multiple independent kitchens and a central taphouse.
Phoodery emphasizes current tenants
In its response to the Curbside King allegations, The Phoodery sought to separate the dispute from the other businesses currently operating at the food hall.
The business said six of its seven restaurant spaces are occupied by independently owned local businesses and emphasized that those businesses employ local workers, participate in community events and operate independently.
The Phoodery identified the current businesses as The Phoodery Taphouse, Truffle Pig, Busy Bea’s, Northwest Pizza, Seoul Stix and Hula Chill.
“We’re not asking anyone to choose sides,” The Phoodery said. “We’re asking that our current businesses be judged by the food they serve, the people behind their counters and the experiences you have with them today.”
The Phoodery said it recognizes the property’s history but wants its current businesses to be judged on their present operations.
Curbside King, meanwhile, maintains that the circumstances surrounding its departure demonstrate that problems at the property extend beyond previous management.
The competing statements leave the central question — whether Curbside King owed the additional $1,300 claimed by The Phoodery and whether that amount justified termination of the lease — disputed between the two sides.
Neither side has publicly provided the complete lease agreement or other documentation establishing the disputed payment terms.
Discover more from Medford Alert News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
