Profit Recovery Partners Lawsuit: Sealing Ruling and Outcome

The Profit Recovery Partners lawsuit was a contract dispute filed by the Santa Ana, California consulting firm against a former client, Oncourse Home Solutions, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in July 2023 over unpaid consulting invoices. After nearly two years of litigation, the parties settled in mid-2025 on terms that were not made public.¹

What the Dispute Was About

The relationship began in April 2018, when Profit Recovery Partners (PRP) signed a Consulting Services Agreement with American Water Works Service Company to help reduce vendor costs. An addendum later extended PRP’s work to American Water’s internal Homeowner Services Group division.²

In late 2021, American Water sold that division to funds advised by the private equity firm Apax Partners, and it was rebranded as Oncourse Home Solutions.³ PRP alleged that after the sale, the new entity stopped paying invoices for consulting services PRP had already performed. The complaint, filed July 28, 2023, asserted breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The amount in controversy was not publicly specified but exceeded the threshold for federal diversity jurisdiction.²

Oncourse fired back with counterclaims. It alleged that PRP had breached two Statements of Work under the consulting agreement and that those breaches caused Oncourse to be overbilled or to overpay for PRP’s work.²

The Sealing Ruling

Early in the case, PRP tried to keep its complaint and several exhibits under seal, including the 2018 Consulting Services Agreement, an email between PRP and HOS representatives, the addendum, and a demand letter. PRP argued the documents contained confidential and proprietary information protected by a non-disclosure agreement.²

On December 7, 2023, Magistrate Judge Ann Marie Donio denied the motion without prejudice. She found that PRP had failed to show a “clearly defined and serious injury” from disclosure, called the asserted harm “too vague,” and noted that PRP’s argument appeared to rest on compliance with a private contract rather than any concrete concern such as competitive disadvantage or financial harm. She also observed that some of the information PRP wanted sealed was already public through Oncourse’s unsealed counterclaim, and that the contract terms were central to deciding the breach of contract claims on the merits. “The Court does not sit, in general, to resolve private disputes in secret,” she wrote. The parties were given until January 5, 2024, to file a renewed motion, failing which the unredacted materials would be made public.²

How the Case Ended

After roughly two years of litigation, Judge Donio held a settlement conference on June 12, 2025 and administratively terminated the case for 60 days. A formal notice of settlement was filed on July 3, 2025. The financial terms were not made public.⁴

Other Lawsuits Involving PRP

The Oncourse case is not the only litigation on PRP’s record, though the others are unrelated to that dispute. In 2017, PRP filed a labor and employment case in Orange County Superior Court against HBR Consulting LLC and two individuals, Gerald Wilkinson and Jeffrey Baldassari. Docket activity continued through at least late 2019, when Baldassari filed a motion for summary judgment, but no final outcome was publicly available.⁵

Earlier, a former PRP employee, Richard W. Brittain, sued the company in California over commission payments following his November 2006 termination. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in PRP’s favor on April 27, 2011.⁶

1
CourtListener. Profit Recovery Partners LLC v. Oncourse Home Solutions LLC Docket
2
GovInfo. Memorandum Opinion and Order, Profit Recovery Partners v. Oncourse Home Solutions
3
Apax Partners. Oncourse Home Solutions Partnership
4
CourtListener. Profit Recovery Partners LLC v. Oncourse Home Solitions LLC Docket
5
Unicourt. Profit Recovery Partners LLC vs HBR Consulting LLC
6
CaseMine. Brittain v. Profit Recovery Partners LLC