In his own lawsuit against Pruvit and CEO Brian Underwood, Michael Rutherford has been denied injunctive relief.

Two of Rutherford’s attorneys have also filed motions to withdraw, citing non-payment of accrued legal fees.

Rutherford filed suit against Pruvit and Underwood, for a second time, back in June.

The suit pertains to an allegedly breached settlement agreement, wherein Pruvit agreed to pay Rutherford “up to $100,000 a month” if he left the company.

In denying Rutherford’s requested injunctive relief, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, the court found he had “not shown that denying injunctive relief will cause irreparable harm”.

That is to say, denying Rutherford’s sought relief wouldn’t result in any irreversible outcomes.

Arguments raised by Rutherford in seeking injunctive relief were that he would be unable to pay legal fees, lose access to his children and become homeless.

Addressing these arguments, the court wrote in its September 13th order;

The harm that Plaintiff alleges he will sustain is monetary. Plaintiff’s overbroad interpretation of Garcia coupled with his speculative prediction as to the family law court’s determination cannot transform monetary harm into irreparable, familial harm.

Plaintiff similarly claims that he “will be homeless” if the Court does not grant monetary relief.

Again, Plaintiff opines that he will imminently lose his home if he cannot pay his mortgage, but he offers little evidence to prove that such an outcome would occur.

Plaintiff also cannot receive injunctive relief because his damages are not especially difficult to quantify.

The Court recognizes that Defendant’s withholding of commissions will cause Plaintiff financial hardship, but multiple factors mitigate the harm Plaintiff will sustain until the expedited trial.

For example, Plaintiff claims that he “has only approximately $8,000 in his bank account,” but he has “other household income from his partner who contributes” as a business operator.

Plaintiff also received “more than $600,000 . . . in the ten months prior to the dispute”.

Given that Plaintiff currently has financial support and previously received a significant sum, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not suffered, nor will continue to suffer, irreparable harm warranting injunctive relief before the expedited trial.

Before the court issued it’s order, one of Rutherford’s attorneys filed a motion to withdraw on September 3rd.

As of August 7, 2024, the Plaintiff has accrued an outstanding bill of “$16,411.60”.

The last time Welllman & Warren, LLP received payment was on April 9, 2024, when the initial retainer was paid.

Since that date, this initial payment was expended and not replenished by the Plaintiff and therefore the above mentioned outstanding balance is currently due.

This was followed up Rutherford’s second attorney also filing a motion to withdraw on September 18th.

Plaintiff entered into a Fee Agreement with CRM and was obligated to pay a retainer and to pay CRM’s invoices.

Plaintiff has failed to pay all of the invoices and has failed to maintain the retainer.

Approval of the two withdrawal motions remains pending.

In the meantime, the court issued a scheduling order on September 6th. As per the order, the Rutherford v. Pruvit trial has been tentatively scheduled for March 3rd, 2025.

 

Update 29th October 2024 – Both motions to withdraw were granted on October 1st.