Kanti Gala sues mentor and upline Bill Britt
|I am a bit late in reporting the suit. I only found out about it
last night. The suit was filed on 1/10/2010 but from what I gather the dispute
has been going on since 2006.
This is another great example of how a Diamond's tools income can get turned off at a drop of a hat by the upline "triple super awesome diamond grand master dragon wizard".
or around May of 2006, Kanti and Hemi Gala were terminated from their membership in BWW,
and all sales of BSMs (including tool sales) sales to Kanti and Hemi Gala were cut
off by Defendants. Kanti and Hemi Gala were allegedly subject to a April, 2006,
hearing regarding their termination, conducted by the Executive Committee of
BWW. The notice for the alleged BWW hearing was sent to Kanti and Hemi Gala by counsel for
Defendants when Defendants were aware that Kanti and Hemi Gala were travelling in India
and would not receive actual notice of such hearing. Defendants
termination and cutoff of tool sales and income to Kanti and Hemi Gala caused harm to
Plaintiffs through a substantial loss of all income from their down-line LOS for all
products and services associated with Defendants.
The Gala's also allege defamation and disparagement, which is a common claim after a falling out with the line of sponsorship. Most court cases I've read concerning Amway highlight this sudden change from "positivity" to "negativity".
23 In conjunction with their improper termination, Kanti and Hemi Gala were defamed and disparaged by Defendants Britt and Kanti Gala (II), along with other members of the BWW Executive Committee. The defamation included statements disparaging the Galas work ethic, dedication, and commitment to their down-line LOS.
The Gala's are claiming breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraudulent inducement, and defamation.
Before the suit was filed the Gala's attempted to file an arbitration demand against the Britt plaintiffs under Rule 11 of the Amway code of conduct. From what I gather the Gala's did not want to risk the "wrath of Amway" by taking a dispute outside the JAMs/Amway "sphere of influence".
Britt did not dispute the arbitration with JAMS until the oral argument on the scope of arbitration in Atlanta. The JAMs arbitrator ruled that the Amway rule 11 did not apply and the BWW arbitration clause would apply. After this the suit in Nevada was file in January of 2010.
On 2/22/2010 Gala file an emergency motion to stay the AAA arbitration.
On March 1, 2010 the arbitration took place. The Gala's did not participate. The Britt's issued their response to the emergency motion on 3/11/2010
On 3/15/2010 the Gala's then filed a Supplement to Opposition to Emergency Motion to Stay Arbitration after the arbitration handed them an unfavorable decision and a bill for $5,184,000 to be paid to BWW!
On 3/22/2010 the Gala's respond to the motion to stay arbitration in which they contend they would never have filed an arbitration demand if they had know it would not be handled under Amway's Rule 11. The Gala's challenge that the arbitration provision in the BWW Operating Agreement is adhesive, unconscionable, and unenforceable. That is what other courts have ruled about the Amway rules as well! I can't see why the corrupt Amway rules would be of any benefit to them unless they think Amway can somehow manipulate the outcome to their favor.
On 6/21/2010 motion the court to dismiss the case and challenge jurisdiction as none of the parties have any material presence in the State of Nevada! But then on the same day he Britt's motion the court in Nevada to confirm the arbitration award and enter a judgement. Exhibits 1-3 Exhibits 4-6
On 6/28/2010 the judge denied the motion to stay arbitration.
On 7/09/2010 the Gala's filed their response to the motion to grant judgement. The
Gala's argue that the Amway rule 11 must be followed. The Britt's did not bring
their counter claims through the Amway dispute resolution process as would apply with Rule
11. The Gala's also argue that Britts' counter claims were too old when using the Amway
rule 11. The Gala's also argue that the supposed original violations occurred in
India, where separate Indian law and corporations for the Gala's and Britt's are involved.
The Gala's contend that BWW LLC cannot sue on behalf of
The response also mentioned Britt's pervious acceptance of the Rule 11 when dealing with the Britt vs. Larry Winters lawsuit.
DEFENDANTS HAVE WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE AWARD AT ISSUE THROUGH JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, AS THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE BINDING NATURE OF AMWAYS RULE 11 CLAUSE.
It will be interesting to see how this all ends!