On August 20, 2026, the Honorable Christina A. Snyder of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California voided the agreements at the center of Goglia Nutrition, LLC v. Levan, et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-08840-CAS-MAA) for fraud in the execution, and denied motions to compel arbitration brought by FuturHealth, Inc. and by Goglia Nutrition’s former managers, John Levan and Luke Mahoney. The ruling followed a three-day evidentiary hearing in May at which the court sat as trier of fact – in substance a bench trial on the fraud at the heart of the case.
LTL represents Plaintiff Goglia Nutrition, the company behind the G-Plans personalized nutrition platform, in a case alleging that its own managers secretly founded a competing telehealth venture, FuturHealth, built it with the company’s technology and customer data, and then obtained their partners’ signatures on agreements transferring the company’s most valuable assets. In January 2026, the court entered a preliminary injunction requiring FuturHealth to strip Goglia Nutrition’s metabolic typing system from its platform and to escrow revenues from shared customers.
Most fraud attacks on a contract are claims of inducement: the signer knew what the document was but was misled about the bargain. Those claims render a contract voidable, and as a rule they belong to the arbitrator. Fraud in the execution is the rarer and harder showing – that the signer never understood the character of the document at all, and had no reasonable opportunity to learn it. Because it asks whether a contract was formed, a court decides it, and it voids the agreement together with the arbitration clause inside it.
That second requirement is where such claims usually fail, because a party who signs without reading is ordinarily bound. The court held otherwise here. Levan and Mahoney were fiduciaries who owed their partners a duty of full disclosure, and they concealed both that FuturHealth was their own company and that the documents authorized a $4 million buyout of Goglia Nutrition’s core technology rather than the licensing deal they described. The court found that the founders “were each deceived … as to the basic nature and character of the Agreements,” and that Levan and Mahoney had “manufactured” the urgency used to secure the signatures – executing what one of them called the plan to “make [Goglia] sign it and fill him in later about what he’s signed.”
The agreements were the lynchpin of the defense. FuturHealth had argued that they governed the core subject matter of the case, and that the claims against it – trade secret misappropriation, copyright and trademark infringement, conversion, unfair competition, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty – all turned on conduct the agreements authorized. The operative complaint pleads nineteen causes of action arising from the same scheme, including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against the managers themselves. The ruling removes the foundation for that defense and keeps the case in federal court. LTL’s Caleb Liang, David Ammons, and Kevin Kelly represent Goglia Nutrition.