Mark and Tammy Smith's fraud case against Neora heads to arbitration after court rejection

A California federal judge has blocked Mark and Tammy Smith from stopping their lawsuit against Neora and company executive Jeff Olson from going to arbitration in Texas—a move that hands a significant advantage to the supplement company.

The Smiths fought hard to keep the case in California court. Their lawyers raised vigorous objections during the evidentiary hearing. But the judge found the arbitration question had already been "fully and fairly litigated" in Texas state court proceedings. The Smiths claimed the earlier litigation wasn't fair, but they provided no legal reason why overruled objections should count as proof of unfair treatment.

The court saw no real difference between the two cases. The California motion for a preliminary injunction involved "identical issues" that Texas courts had already worked through. Without any genuine factual dispute left to resolve on the arbitration agreement itself, the Smiths faced an uphill battle. The judge ruled they were unlikely to succeed on the merits and denied their motion for preliminary injunction on June 20th.

This was a clean win for Neora. Arbitration in Texas would work far better for the company than defending itself in California.

The Smiths didn't give up. On June 27th, they filed a motion asking the court to reconsider its decision. They waited months for an answer. On September 10th, the court said no. The judge also froze the California case, ordering both sides to file a status report on the Texas arbitration every six months.

By December, the legal ground had shifted again. A December 9th order suggested the entire question of whether Texas arbitration could override the California lawsuit had landed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court that handles cases from California and the western region. The Smiths' path forward now ran through appellate courts, a longer and steeper climb.

Then, quietly, the case ended. On June 1st, 2020, the Smiths voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against Neora. The legal battle that had stretched across state lines and through multiple court rulings simply stopped. No settlement announcement. No public statement. Just a dismissal.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of Mark and Tammy Smith's attempt to prevent arbitration in their Neora lawsuit?

A California federal judge denied the Smiths' motion to block arbitration, ruling that the arbitration question had already been thoroughly litigated in Texas state court. The decision compels their fraud case against Neora and executive Jeff Olson to proceed to arbitration in Texas rather than California court, providing a significant procedural advantage to the supplement company.

Why did the Smiths argue against the arbitration proceedings?

The Smiths contended that the prior Texas state court litigation was unfair and should not be considered valid grounds for enforcing arbitration. However, the judge found their arguments insufficient, as they failed to provide concrete legal justification for why previously overruled objections constituted evidence of unjust treatment in the earlier proceedings.

🔗 Related Articles

- Details of the Youngevity v. Wakaya Perfection settlement
- Nerium seek to stop former Master Distributors from raiding for Jeunesse
- Youngevity’s Wakaya Perfection lawsuit settled
- TranzactCard collapses, rebooted as FinMore
- AO Smith USDT Review: Stolen identity “click a button” Ponzi