Pruvit has filed a lawsuit towards Michael Rutherford and Keisha O’Neal.
Of their lawsuit, Pruvit accuses Rutherford and O’Neal of soliciting Pruvit distributors for an undisclosed “separate enterprise enterprise”.
Pruvit asserts that on account of their exercise, Rutherford and O’Neal have breached the phrases of settlement agreements reached final 12 months.
Rutherford and O’Neal’s Pruvit settlement agreements took place after Rutherford sued Pruvit over suspended commissions in Might 2023.
In his lawsuit, Rutherford claimed he was being bullied by Pruvit CEO Brian Underwood.
Pruvit claims O’Neal additionally threatened authorized motion however didn’t file go well with. Nonetheless, Pruvit entered into settlement agreements with Rutherford and O’Neal to settle the dispute.
Writes Pruvit of their Grievance, initially filed in a Texas District Courtroom however bumped to federal courtroom on April tenth;
In trade for the consideration enumerated within the Settlement Settlement, Defendant Rutherford and Defendant O’Neal agreed to a non-solicitation provision which restricts their means to promote, market, and promote non-Pruvit alternatives, merchandise, or companies and additional restricts them from soliciting Pruvers, Pruvit prospects, and Pruvit staff.
Moreover, the phrases of the Settlement Settlement require Defendants to take particular motion with regard to their social media pages.
For the reason that execution of the Settlement Settlement, Defendants Rutherford and O’Neal have continued to solicit Pruvers for a separate enterprise enterprise, each by offline communications and thru social media platforms.
Social media pages belonging to Defendants Rutherford and O’Neal proof the truth that each people have refused to unfriend and/or unfollow many Pruvers.
Defendants’ conduct is a breach of Part III, Subsections 1(d)(i), 6 and seven of the Settlement Settlement.
Pruvit claims it knowledgeable Rutherford and O’Neal they had been violating their settlement agreements however was ignored.
The Settlement Settlement incorporates a liquidated damages provision for every violation of the Settlement Settlement that Defendants fail to treatment.
Defendant Rutherford agreed to the fee of liquidated damages within the quantity of $75,000 for every uncured violation.
Defendant O’Neal agreed to the fee of liquidated damages within the quantity of $25,000 for every uncured violation.
Pruvit seeks restoration of liquidated damages for every violation of the Settlement Settlement and all different lawyer’s charges, prices, and bills incurred by Pruvit in reference to this motion.
On April seventeenth Rutherford and O’Neal filed a Movement to Dismiss Pruvit’s Grievance.
The pair argue Pruvit’s Grievance
fails to determine the contractual language that was breached, or the way it was breached [and] fails to allege that Pruvit carried out beneath the phrases of the settlement.
Keep tuned for updates as BehindMLM continues to trace the case.