OPMS Kratom Corporate Structure: Louisiana Lawsuit Court Evidence

Back to OPMS Court Records

This filing asks a federal judge to look past the separate company names associated with OPMS and decide whether the businesses and certain individuals can be treated as one enterprise for purposes of the court’s jurisdiction.

At a Glance

Case: Kathleen Moller v. Martian Sales, Inc., et al., No. 2:24-cv-00228, Eastern District of Louisiana.
Filing: Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, June 30, 2025.
Issue: Corporate veil piercing, single business enterprise and alter ego, for jurisdictional purposes only.
Record: 46 PDFs, including the motion and 45 attachments.
Status: These are the plaintiff’s arguments and submitted exhibits, not a finding that all entities were legally one company.

Why lawmakers should care

When a consumer buys an OPMS kratom product, the brand name may not tell them which company manufactured, distributed, labeled, financed or controlled it. This filing examines those relationships through invoices, business filings, sworn testimony and financial records.

The plaintiff names Martian Sales, JOpen, Johnson Foods, LP IND., CAG Holdings, RMH Holdings and additional entities in her proposed single-enterprise theory. She also identifies individuals whom she argues functioned as alter egos of some of those businesses. The defendants are entitled to contest these claims.

Legislative questionCan regulators and injured consumers identify the responsible legal entity, obtain records and enforce product-safety obligations when multiple companies participate in the same branded product?

The evidence that matters most

Commercial invoices and correspondence. Documents 132-6 through 132-8 and 132-29 through 132-33 show transactions, professional services and communications involving Johnson Foods and other named businesses. Their significance is in tracing relationships, not proving misconduct by themselves.

Corporate and financial records. Documents 132-4 and 132-34 through 132-36 concern company registration, tax and accounting records. These are relevant to ownership and financial separation, although the court must decide what weight they carry.

Sworn testimony and discovery. Deposition and formal discovery exhibits address what witnesses said and what records the companies produced or objected to producing.

Investigative declaration. Document 132-44 is a 489-page compilation led by investigator Kathy Leodler’s declaration. Its factual assertions and inferences require scrutiny alongside the attached source records.

The legal question here is corporate accountability, not whether this motion proves kratom caused the death.

Six connections legislators should examine

The filing asks whether separate OPMS-related entities should be treated as one enterprise for jurisdictional purposes. The records are most useful when read together.

1. Who owned the OPMS brand?

The 2014 licensing agreement and four trademark exhibits document formal brand rights. Compare the named owners and licensees with the companies that handled product distribution. Ownership of a trademark is not proof of control over every sale.

Source PDFs: 132-12 through 132-16.

2. Why do invoices identify different companies?

Johnson Foods, Telescaph Inter Texas, NP Pharma Holdings and Nunesso appear in invoices from 2022. A January 2023 email discusses changes in billing. These are concrete business records, but billing arrangements alone do not establish alter-ego liability.

Source PDFs: 132-6, 132-7, 132-8, 132-33.

3. Who coordinated marketing and operations?

Emails and Acuity Strategic Partners invoices discuss a marketing budget, consulting work, staff hours and reorganization. They provide a timeline for tracing decision-making across businesses.

Source PDFs: 132-29 through 132-32.

4. What did the witnesses say under oath?

Mark Reilly’s deposition and separate testimony about a Martian Sales distribution agreement can be compared against written contracts and corporate filings. The full questions and answers matter.

Source PDFs: 132-17, 132-24.

5. What do the financial records establish?

Tax returns and Johnson Foods’ year-end balance sheet document reported finances. They may inform the plaintiff’s theory, but the existence of financial filings does not establish that company funds were improperly mixed.

Source PDFs: 132-34 through 132-36.

6. What is in the 489-page investigation?

Former FBI agent and investigator Kathy Leodler provides a 20-page declaration followed by supporting records. Her analysis connects evidence offered by the plaintiff, but its conclusions remain contested and must be checked against the exhibits.

Source PDF: 132-44.

These are records submitted in support of a motion. They do not establish that the court pierced the corporate veil or found the defendants liable for Harmony Moller’s death.

Original PACER filings and exhibits

Search all 46 court PDFs46 documents

Each entry retains its PACER number, page count and evidence description. Publicly available scans have been visually checked where text extraction was incomplete; sealed exhibits remain unidentified.

Plaintiff’s Motion: Treat OPMS-Related Companies as One EnterprisePACER 132 · 2 pages

Kathleen Moller requests partial summary judgment on corporate veil piercing, single-business-enterprise and alter-ego theories for personal jurisdiction. This is a request, not a ruling.

OPMS Kratom: Who Is Responsible?