Jessica Ponkey’s proposed LuLaRoe class-action has been dismissed for a second time, this time with prejudice.

Ponkey filed suit against LuLaRoe in March 2021. In her original class-action Complaint, Ponkey alleged LuLaRoe was “an unlawful, fraudulent pyramid scheme”.

Ponkey’s class-action was first dismissed in April 2022 following the outcome of ordered mediation between the parties.

Following a reversal by the Ninth Circuit overturning the dismissal, Ponkey’s class-action was reopened in May 2023.

In September 2023 Ponkey filed a motion to transfer the case from Los Angeles to Riverside (both in California Districts), and a First Amended Complaint (FAC).

In October 2023, LuLaRoe filed a motion seeking to dismiss Ponkey’s FAC.

In denying Ponkey’s motion to transfer, the court adopted LuLaRoe’s assertion that Ponkey

appears to be judge shopping and that transferring the case to Riverside, which is already in the Central District of California, would result in unnecessary duplication of judicial resources.

LuLaRoe’s Motion to Dismiss was centered around Ponkey’s claims being time-barred.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, arguing that all of Plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred because the parties agreed to a one-year statute-of-limitations provision in the LuLaRoe Independent Consultant Program Application and Agreement (“Agreement”) and the claims were brought several years after Plaintiffs became consultants.

Ponkey’s position was that the “one-year provision is unconscionable and unenforceable.”

The court sided with LuLaRoe, finding that “the one-year provision is valid”.

In denying Ponkey’s class-action on September 5th, the court denied her permission to refile another amended complaint.

The parties agree that the survival of Plaintiffs’ claims is dependent on the Court finding the one-year provision invalid.

Because the Court has determined that the provision is valid and enforceable, the Court concludes that amendment would be futile. Therefore, leave to amend is DENIED.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

On September 18th, Ponkey advised the court she has filed another appeal in the Ninth Circuit.

There’s no timeline for a Ninth Circuit decision but I’ll continue to check the docket for updates.

 

Update 17th November 2025 – The appeal order from the Ninth Circuit was filed on Ponkey’s case docket on October 30th.

  • the District Court’s denial of Ponkey’s request to transfer the case was upheld;
  • LuLaRoe’s contractual one year limitation on litigation was ruled “unenforceable under Californian law”;
  • dismissal of Ponkey’s claims under California’s Seller Assisted Marketing Plan Act were upheld;
  • Ponkey’s request to reassign the case to a different Judge on remand was denied

As far as I can tell that’s the end of the case but I’ll keep an eye on the docket for a few months more to confirm.