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.
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.
- Kris Jenner And Former Bodyguard Granted 13 Month Extension After They Fail To Settle Sexual Harassment Case
- ‘The Rumor Ain’t True’: OJ Simpson Scoffs At Suggestion He Is Khloé Kardashian’s Real Father, Shades Kris Jenner
- 'He's Seeing Red': O.J. Simpson Fuming At Ex-Pal Kris Jenner For Not Working Her PR Magic To Restore His Rep
“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 firstname.lastname@example.org, or call us at 800-344-9598 any time, day or night.