Jay Bennett granted arbitration in Isagenix retail racket case

Two procedural updates in the Isagenix Amazon retail racket case, filed just over a year ago.The first update pertains to individual arbitration being granted to individual defendant Jay Bennett.
The second update is Isagenix and the individual defendants failing to get the lawsuit dismissed.
As per a March 15th order, arbitration will be used to settle claims against Jay Bennett by Plaintiffs Bryan Lund and Scott Christensen.
Individual defendants Siv Bennet and Jennifer Rodriguez had also filed to compel arbitration for claims made against them.
Isagenix didnt seek arbitration but sought to have claims that weren’t subjected to arbitration stayed.
Both Siv Bennet’s and Rodriguez’s request for arbitration were denied. Isagenix’s request for a stay was also denied.
The court denied Defendant’s request to stay the litigation as it pertains to Isagenix or to Siv Bennett or Jennifer Rodriguez, and all claims against those Defendants will proceed in this court.
A separate March 15th order pertains to a motion to dismiss filed by Isagenix and all three individual defendants.
The motion to dismiss was denied on all counts except number four.
Count Four pertains to “material misrepresentation” against Isagenix.
Under Utah law, material misrepresentation does not appear to be a standalone claim that can be asserted for money damages.
Given that Isagenix is not a party to the relevant contract – the Position Agreement dated January 16, 2019 – and because Plaintiffs already allege negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims against Isagenix, there is no basis for a standalone material misrepresentations claim against Isagenix.
Count Four is therefore dismissed with prejudice as against Isagenix only.
The court denied Defendants’ Motion in all other aspects.
Pending the outcome of arbitration and proceedings in the Utah District Court, stay tuned…

Two procedural updates in the Isagenix Amazon retail racket case, filed just over a year ago.

The first update pertains to individual arbitration being granted to individual defendant Jay Bennett.

The second update is Isagenix and the individual defendants failing to get the lawsuit dismissed.

As per a March 15th order, arbitration will be used to settle claims against Jay Bennett by Plaintiffs Bryan Lund and Scott Christensen.

Individual defendants Siv Bennet and Jennifer Rodriguez had also filed to compel arbitration for claims made against them.

Isagenix didn’t seek arbitration but sought to have claims that weren’t subjected to arbitration stayed.

Both Siv Bennet’s and Rodriguez’s request for arbitration were denied. Isagenix’s request for a stay was also denied.

The court denied Defendant’s request to stay the litigation as it pertains to Isagenix or to Siv Bennett or Jennifer Rodriguez, and all claims against those Defendants will proceed in this court.

A separate March 15th order pertains to a motion to dismiss filed by Isagenix and all three individual defendants.

The motion to dismiss was denied on all counts except number four.

Count Four pertains to “material misrepresentation” against Isagenix.

Under Utah law, material misrepresentation does not appear to be a standalone claim that can be asserted for money damages.

Given that Isagenix is not a party to the relevant contract – the Position Agreement dated January 16, 2019 – and because Plaintiffs already allege negligent misrepresentation and fraud claims against Isagenix, there is no basis for a standalone material misrepresentations claim against Isagenix.

Count Four is therefore dismissed with prejudice as against Isagenix only.

The court denied Defendants’ Motion in all other aspects.

Pending the outcome of arbitration and proceedings in the Utah District Court, stay tuned…

Add comment

Most popular