Pruvit has filed a lawsuit against Michael Rutherford and Keisha O’Neal.

In their lawsuit, Pruvit accuses Rutherford and O’Neal of soliciting Pruvit distributors for an undisclosed “separate business venture”.

Pruvit asserts that as a result of their activity, Rutherford and O’Neal have breached the terms of settlement agreements reached last year.

Rutherford and O’Neal’s Pruvit settlement agreements came about after Rutherford sued Pruvit over suspended commissions in May 2023.

In his lawsuit, Rutherford claimed he was being bullied by Pruvit CEO Brian Underwood.

Pruvit claims O’Neal also threatened legal action but didn’t file suit. Nevertheless, Pruvit entered into settlement agreements with Rutherford and O’Neal to settle the dispute.

Writes Pruvit in their Complaint, originally filed in a Texas District Court but bumped to federal court on April 10th;

In exchange for the consideration enumerated in the Settlement Agreement, Defendant Rutherford and Defendant O’Neal agreed to a non-solicitation provision which restricts their ability to advertise, market, and promote non-Pruvit opportunities, products, or services and further restricts them from soliciting Pruvers, Pruvit customers, and Pruvit employees.

Additionally, the terms of the Settlement Agreement require Defendants to take specific action with regard to their social media pages.

Since the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants Rutherford and O’Neal have continued to solicit Pruvers for a separate business venture, both through offline communications and through social media platforms.

Social media pages belonging to Defendants Rutherford and O’Neal evidence the fact that both individuals have refused to unfriend and/or unfollow many Pruvers.

Defendants’ conduct is a breach of Section III, Subsections 1(d)(i), 6 and 7 of the Settlement Agreement.

Pruvit claims it informed Rutherford and O’Neal they were violating their settlement agreements but was ignored.

The Settlement Agreement contains a liquidated damages provision for each violation of the Settlement Agreement that Defendants fail to cure.

Defendant Rutherford agreed to the payment of liquidated damages in the amount of $75,000 for each uncured violation.

Defendant O’Neal agreed to the payment of liquidated damages in the amount of $25,000 for each uncured violation.

Pruvit seeks recovery of liquidated damages for each violation of the Settlement Agreement and all other attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred by Pruvit in connection with this action.

On April 17th Rutherford and O’Neal filed a Motion to Dismiss Pruvit’s Complaint.

The pair argue Pruvit’s Complaint

fails to identify the contractual language that was breached, or how it was breached [and] fails to allege that Pruvit performed under the terms of the agreement.

Stay tuned for updates as BehindMLM continues to track the case.

 

Update 3rd June 2024 – Pruvit filed a First Amended Complaint on May 20th, 2024. The First Amended Complaint adds some particularities with respect to alleged settlement agreement violations.

Since the execution of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants Rutherford and O’Neal have continued to solicit Pruvers for a separate business venture, both through offline communications and through social media platforms.

Social media pages belonging to Defendants Rutherford and O’Neal evidence the fact that both individuals have refused to unfriend and/or unfollow Pruvers and refuse to remove many Pruvers who follow Defendants.

Upon information and belief, Defendants have further traveled with Pruvers and provided Pruvers with information to attempt to litigate with Pruvit after execution of the Settlement Agreement.

Out of curiosity I ran a search on any new lawsuits involving Pruvit and nothing came up.

In light of Pruvit’s First Amended Complaint filing, Rutherford’s and O’Neal’s Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot on May 23rd.

As at the time of this update there are no further entries on the case docket.