Get Your Fresh Intelligence Daily

SUBMIT

Not Keeping Up! Kardashian Sisters Face Set Back In Cosmetics Lawsuit

Apr. 20 2018, Published 12:34 p.m. ET

Link to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to Email

The Kardashian sisters and matriarch Kris Jenner recently lost an attempt to squash a lawsuit related to their multi-million dollar cosmetics line, according to court documents obtained exclusively by RadarOnline.com.

A judge on April 4 denied the Kardashians’ motion asking the court to order John LaBonty, former CEO of Haven Beauty, to agree to an arbitration regarding a breech of contract suit LaBonty filed in 2017 against Kim, Kourtney, Khloè, the sisters’ mom Kris Jenner and their various companies, including Jenner’s Momager, Inc.

Article continues below advertisement

READ THE COURT DOCUMENTS!

Boldface, which later folded and resurrected as a new company, Haven Beauty, was licensed to sell Kardashian makeup brand. LaBonty claimed Kim, Kourtney, Khloè failed to promote, market and support the Kardashian Beauty cosmetic line because they wanted to undermine the term sheet agreement that would have provided LaBonty at least five percent equity of Haven Beauty.

The former CEO also said he was fired from his position at the behest of the Kardashians.

In a declaration filed in March, LaBonty said he never signed an employment agreement while he was CEO of Haven Beauty. The family, however, argued LaBonty’s Boldface employment agreement, including the arbitration clause, continued when LaBonty was named CEO of Haven Beauty.

However, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michelle Williams has found the sisters and momager Jenner could not force LaBonty into resolving the family’s contract dispute.

Article continues below advertisement

Arbitration is a matter of contract, and a party cannot be required to arbitrate a dispute unless agreed,” the judge wrote in her April 4 judgment. “Nothing in the Term Sheet indicates an intent to incorporate the terms of the licensing agreement."

"On the contrary, the Term Sheet shows an intention to modify the licensing agreement and to provide additional agreements and documents as part of the formation of the new company," added the judge. "It appears those documents never materialized.”

The case will come back in front of the judge on May 8.

We pay for juicy info! Do you have a story for RadarOnline.com? Email us at tips@radaronline.com, or call us at 800-344-9598 any time, day or night.

Advertisement

© Copyright 2021 Radar Media Group LLC. Radar and RadarOnline are registered trademarks. All Rights Reserved. People may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website. Offers may be subject to change without notice.