Eaconomy files stipulated Auvoria Prime restraining order

In our recent Auvoria Prime review we touched on a lawsuit filed by Eaconomy against the company.

The day after our review was published, Eaconomy filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.

Eaconomy’s filed April 6th TRO motion sought to

restrain defendants Auvoria Prime and Sal Leto from using Eaconomy’s proprietary database to interfere with its contracts with distributors.

Auvoria Prime and Leto responded on April 9th, claiming Eaconomy’s motion was based on “false and unsupported assertions of fact”.

Leto (right) claims he didn’t control or manage Eaconomy’s affiliate database.

Mr. Leto never accessed the database or back office at any time.

Eaconomy’s contrary assertions, while apparently fundamental to its Application, are complete fabrications.

With respect to the Atlanta event Eaconomy claims Leto solicited its affiliates to join Auvoria Prime at, Leto claims nothing pertaining to Auvoria Prime was discussed until after the event.

After the event, Mr. Leto attended a private dinner with approximately 4 distributors with whom he had developed close personal relationships.

The dinner occurred just 2 days before Mr. Leto tendered his resignation to Eaconomy, and he accordingly used the opportunity to advise of his pending departure so his friends would hear the news directly from him.

In doing so, Mr. Leto

(i) did not solicit these distributors in any way (and to the contrary told them to remain with Eaconomy notwithstanding his imminent departure), and

(ii) requested non-disclosure agreements to ensure that the explanation he provided for his departure would not be conveyed to the broader community in any way that might negatively impact Eaconomy’s affairs.

Eaconomy’s contrary assertions are false and rest on hearsay and conjecture.

On April 10th the court issued an order requesting Eaconomy show case as to why their TRO motion shouldn’t be dismissed.

The court put forth that by waiting over a month since allegedly learning Leto was raiding the company, Eaconomy violated
‘Local Rule 231(b) based upon its undue delay in seeking emergency relief’
.

Eaconomy filed their response on April 13th, revealing, among other things, Hassan Mahmoud (right) had contracted COVID-19.

First, the Court is under the impression that Plaintiff became aware of Mr. Leto’s wrongful solicitation on March 4, 2020, the date Mr. Leto sent out an improper response letter and video to the entire field of Independent Software Partners (“ISPs”).

However, while Mr. Leto’s letter/video was indeed sent to the field on March 4, 2020, Plaintiff did not see its content until days later.

The reason that Plaintiff did not see this beforehand was because Mr. Leto intentionally removed Plaintiff from the Telegram Portal where the content was posted, effectively precluding Plaintiff from having access to it.

Mr. Leto did this to prevent Plaintiff from being able to see what was being posted on the portal.

Second, after learning of the solicitation, and

🤖 Quick Answer

What legal action did Eaconomy file against Auvoria Prime?

How did Auvoria Prime and Sal Leto respond to Eaconomy's TRO motion?
On April 9th, Auvoria Prime and Leto filed a response denying the allegations, characterizing Eaconomy's motion as based on "false and unsupported assertions of fact" and claiming Leto never accessed the database or back office.

🔗 Related Articles

- ACN Trump lawsuit stayed till outcome of arbitration appeal
- Ad Wealth System Review: $25 “unlimited” Ponzi ROIs
- 2×9 BitMax Review: Matrix-based bitcoin cash gifting
- $314,228 Canadian Zeek net-winner’s $2800 settlement offer rejected
- Akashx: My Daily Choice’s “social trading” securities fraud