Ponkey LuLaRoe class-action dismissed for 2nd time

A federal court has shut down Jessica Ponkey's lawsuit against LuLaRoe for the second time, this time permanently.

Ponkey filed her class-action complaint in March 2021, accusing LuLaRoe of operating "an unlawful, fraudulent pyramid scheme." A judge dismissed the case in April 2022 after the parties went through court-ordered mediation. But in May 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal and sent the case back to court.

Ponkey then tried a new strategy. She filed an amended complaint in September 2023 and asked to move the case from Los Angeles to Riverside, both in California's Central District. LuLaRoe shot back with a motion to dismiss the new complaint, arguing that Ponkey's claims had expired under a one-year deadline buried in LuLaRoe's consultant agreement.

The judge rejected Ponkey's request to transfer venues, agreeing with LuLaRoe that she was "judge shopping" and that moving the case would waste judicial resources. But the transfer issue paled next to the statute-of-limitations problem.

LuLaRoe's consultant agreement included a one-year window to file any lawsuits. Ponkey had signed that agreement years before suing. The company argued her claims were dead on arrival. Ponkey fought back, calling the one-year deadline "unconscionable and unenforceable."

The court disagreed. On September 5th, the judge ruled the one-year provision was valid and binding. Because the deadline was enforceable, any amended complaint Ponkey filed would be pointless—her claims would still be time-barred. The judge denied her permission to file another version and dismissed the entire case with prejudice, meaning she cannot refile it.

Ponkey appealed to the Ninth Circuit again on September 18th.

A Ninth Circuit panel ruled on October 30th and largely upheld the dismissal. The appellate court confirmed the lower court's decision to keep the case in Los Angeles and upheld the dismissal of Ponkey's claims under California's Seller Assisted Marketing Plan Act. The panel also denied her request to have a different judge hear the case if it went back to trial.

But the appeals court delivered one victory for Ponkey: it ruled that LuLaRoe's one-year limitation clause was actually "unenforceable under Californian law." The problem was timing. By then, the lower court had already dismissed her claims on other grounds that survived appellate review. The unenforceable deadline didn't matter anymore because the case was already gone.

That appears to be the end of the road for Ponkey's case. The docket suggests no further legal action is pending, though a final confirmation could take a few more months.

🤖 Quick Answer

What happened in the Ponkey v. LuLaRoe class-action lawsuit?

Why was Ponkey's amended complaint challenged by LuLaRoe?
LuLaRoe filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint submitted in September 2023, arguing that Ponkey's claims had expired under a one-year statute of limitations contained within the company's consultant agreement, which governed the contractual relationship between LuLaRoe and its independent retailers.

**Which courts handled the Ponkey v. LuLaRoe

🔗 Related Articles

- Uforia Science and MaVie announce One You merger
- Zimbabwe’s largest telecom provider handles MMM Global deposits
- OmegaPro securities fraud warning from Nicaragua
- Kuvera Global launches new unregistered securities, SEC still asleep
- Genesis Mining dismissed from South Carolina cease and desist