Jessica Ponkey’s proposed LuLaRoe class-action has been dismissed for a second time, this time with prejudice.
Ponkey filed swimsuit in opposition to LuLaRoe in March 2021. In her authentic class-action Criticism, Ponkey alleged LuLaRoe was “an illegal, fraudulent pyramid scheme”.
Ponkey’s class-action was first dismissed in April 2022 following the end result of ordered mediation between the events.
Following a reversal by the Ninth Circuit overturning the dismissal, Ponkey’s class-action was reopened in Might 2023.
In September 2023 Ponkey filed a movement to switch the case from Los Angeles to Riverside (each in California Districts), and a First Amended Criticism (FAC).
In October 2023, LuLaRoe filed a movement in search of to dismiss Ponkey’s FAC.
In denying Ponkey’s movement to switch, the courtroom adopted LuLaRoe’s assertion that Ponkey
seems to be choose procuring and that transferring the case to Riverside, which is already within the Central District of California, would lead to pointless duplication of judicial assets.
LuLaRoe’s Movement to Dismiss was centered round Ponkey’s claims being time-barred.
Defendants transfer to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Criticism, arguing that each one of Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred as a result of the events agreed to a one-year statute-of-limitations provision within the LuLaRoe Unbiased Marketing consultant Program Utility and Settlement (“Settlement”) and the claims have been introduced a number of years after Plaintiffs grew to become consultants.
Ponkey’s place was that the “one-year provision is unconscionable and unenforceable.”
The courtroom sided with LuLaRoe, discovering that “the one-year provision is legitimate”.
In denying Ponkey’s class-action on September fifth, the courtroom denied her permission to refile one other amended grievance.
The events agree that the survival of Plaintiffs’ claims depends on the Courtroom discovering the one-year provision invalid.
As a result of the Courtroom has decided that the supply is legitimate and enforceable, the Courtroom concludes that modification can be futile. Subsequently, go away to amend is DENIED.
Accordingly, the Courtroom GRANTS Defendants’ movement to dismiss with out go away to amend.
Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
On September 18th, Ponkey suggested the courtroom she has filed one other enchantment within the Ninth Circuit.
There’s no timeline for a Ninth Circuit choice however I’ll proceed to test the docket for updates.