Jay Bennett secures injunction against Isagenix
Top earner Jay Bennett has secured a preliminary injunction against Isagenix.
The injunction was granted on July 17th, following filings from the respective parties.
Bennett (right) filed suit last month, after Isagenix terminated his five income positions.
In a nutshell, Bennett claims he was was terminated without cause – in violation of the Isagenix Policies and Procedures he agreed to in 2002 and 2016.
Isagenix claims Bennett agreed to a “no-cause termination provision” when he renewed his contract in 2017.
In handing down the injunction, the court cited Ninth Circuit precedent;
The Ninth Circuit has held, however, that one party to a contract cannot make a binding change to the contract without notifying the opposing party of the change and obtaining its assent.
This is true even if the contract provides that one side may change the contract from time to time.
Isagenix agreed at the preliminary injunction hearing that the current record contains no communication from Isagenix alerting Bennett to the change in the renewal provisions.
As a result, the Court concludes that Bennett (is) likely to succeed in showing that the change is not binding on (him), that (his) contracts could be terminated only for cause, and that non-renewal without cause therefore was a breach.
The court went on to determine that, absent a preliminary injunction, Bennett
would suffer substantial consequential damages if their contracts are terminated, totaling millions of dollars.
The granted injunction requires Isagenix to restore Bennett’s access to his five distributor accounts. Isagenix is also prohibited from tampering with Bennett’s downline structure.
Pending conclusion of Bennett’s lawsuit, Isagenix was additionally ordered to post a $1,500,000 bond.
Isagenix has signalled to the court it intends to try and force arbitration. To that end the company was ordered to file a motion to compel arbitration by July 28th.
Update 15th August 2023 – Bennett and Isagenix have entered arbitration as per an agreed stipulation.
Isagenix has also filed an appeal against the injunction granted to Bennett.
This guy is another example of a spoiled, entitled POS distributor that had it good, and then screwed up what he had.
Now he expects Isagenix to fix what he screwed up.
The company screwed him up!!
No, the company did not “screw him up”. He’s just an entitled, whiny little b***h that thinks the world owes him something. The world (and life) doesn’t work that way.
He needs to get off his “Throne of Entitlement”, and realize that this is real life.
He needs to be given a dose of reality & told that the world doesn’t owe him a damned thing!
Isagenix screwed up by making changes to the contract without informing Bennett, according to the court ruling.
If they go into arbitration, the likely outcome may result in a settlement in favor of Bennett.
At least, that’s what I can perceive could be the end result.
@Greg Granger:
how did he screw up? Isagenix is the one selling on Amazon, Jay never did.
Jay Bennett didn’t sell personally on Amazon, but that sleazebag brought in two Amazon / Ebay sellers. That screwed all of his massive downline over.
Bennett knew full well that it violated policy and the little guys losing their a$$es under him wouldn’t be allowed to sell on Amazon.
It looks like the Coovers were in fact in on that Amazon scam, but in order to save face and keep armies of those losing money on the bottom of the pyramid from abandoning ship turned on Bennett.
These lawsuits are good for one thing. Plenty of dirt gets brought to light.
If Jay personally had five income positions with Isagenix, that in itself is a violation of the independent associate contract. Associates are only allowed one position.
Disregard my previous comment. Admin feel free to remove. Associates are only allowed one account. A “position” is different than an account.
That said, Jay also apparently had multiple accounts, which IS a violation of the contract.