The Trulife Distribution lawsuit is a tangle of at least eleven related state and federal actions between Trulife Distribution, a Fort Lauderdale health and wellness distributor, and Nutritional Products International (NPI), a Boca Raton competitor run by the founder’s estranged father. NPI accuses Trulife of copying its business, impersonating it through a fake email address, and misleading clients about the two companies’ relationship; Trulife has brought its own claims, including a RICO case, against NPI and members of the Gould family. As of mid-2026, no court has ruled on the merits of the central allegations, and much of the federal litigation is paused while a Florida state court decides whether a 2020 settlement agreement already resolved these disputes.
Who Is Suing Whom
NPI was founded by Mitch Gould, who still serves as its CEO. The company places health, wellness, and nutrition products from domestic and international manufacturers into U.S. retail channels, including grocery, drug, mass, and online.
Trulife Distribution was launched in August 2019 by Brian Gould, Mitch Gould’s son, after more than a decade at NPI, where he had risen to president. Trulife offers a similar mix of services: retail placement, FDA compliance support, marketing, and logistics. The two companies operate in the same South Florida market, pitching similar clients.
The dispute is, at its core, a commercial fight between a father’s company and a son’s company in the same industry.
What NPI Accuses Trulife of Doing
On May 6, 2022, NPI filed a federal complaint against Trulife in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint set out several specific allegations.
NPI alleged that Trulife took NPI’s proprietary case studies and client testimonials and presented them to prospective customers as Trulife’s own track record, using them to induce clients to sign up and pay fees.
NPI also alleged that someone created the email address “briang@nutricompany.com,” designed to look as though it originated from NPI’s domain, and used it to communicate with at least one potential client. NPI said the address was never created by its IT department and was intended to sabotage NPI’s relationships and redirect business to Trulife.
More broadly, NPI accused Trulife of misrepresenting a connection to NPI, suggesting to third parties that the companies were affiliated or that Trulife had NPI’s endorsement, and of attempting to “clone the NPI operation in its entirety.” NPI brought claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and common law unfair competition. It sought a permanent injunction, compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of Trulife’s profits, and attorneys’ fees.
These are allegations. Trulife has contested them, and no court has issued a final judgment finding fraud or other misconduct.
The 2020 Settlement That Shadows Every Case
The 2022 complaint was not the first round. Disputes between Trulife, NPI, and members of the Gould family date to at least 2019, when a state action was filed in Palm Beach County (Case No. 50-2019-CA-005715). Mediation followed, and in November 2020 the parties entered into what courts have described as a “global settlement agreement.” Trulife, NPI, Mitch Gould, Sherry Gould, and Scott Gould all signed on.
Paragraph 13 of that agreement contained a general release of liability covering claims tied to the disputes litigated up to that point. The scope of that release is now the pivotal legal question. Both sides disagree about whether the conduct alleged in the later lawsuits falls within it, and every federal court to look at these cases has decided to wait for the state court to answer that question first.
That pattern started in June 2021, when Trulife filed a federal suit against the Goulds and NPI employees alleging a “cyber-attacking scheme.” Judge Kenneth Marra stayed the case, reasoning that a Palm Beach County state court was already deciding whether the 2020 settlement barred the federal claims, and that proceeding in parallel risked duplicative work or conflicting rulings.
The 2025 Federal Cases
The litigation flared up again in early 2025 with two new federal filings in the Southern District of Florida, both assigned to Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.
- Case 25-CV-80410, filed March 28, 2025: NPI sued Trulife and Brian Gould for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
- Case 25-CV-80488, filed April 21, 2025: Trulife sued Mitch Gould, Sherry Gould, and NPI, bringing RICO claims and claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Trulife moved to stay both cases, pointing again to the unresolved state court proceedings over the 2020 settlement. On August 8, 2025, Judge Rosenberg agreed. She stayed both cases and ordered them administratively closed, reasoning that it would be “inefficient” to preside over federal litigation that a state ruling on the settlement could render “completely moot.” Pending motions, including a motion to dismiss Trulife had filed in the trademark case, were terminated without prejudice.
Where Things Stand in 2026
Both 2025 federal cases saw renewed activity in 2026. Case 25-CV-80410 was reopened in January 2026 and referred to a magistrate judge. In the RICO case, 25-CV-80488, a motion to dismiss was converted into a motion for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart issued a report and recommendation on the cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27, 2026, and NPI filed objections in June 2026.
The Palm Beach County proceeding over the enforceability and scope of the November 2020 settlement remains ongoing, and it is likely to determine whether the federal claims can proceed at all. If the state court finds the general release covers the conduct alleged in the later suits, much of the federal litigation could be dismissed. If the release is found not to apply, those cases would likely resume in full.
No court has ruled on the merits of the fraud, RICO, trademark, or unfair competition claims at the center of the dispute. After roughly seven years and at least eleven related actions, the core questions between father and son remain open.