Robert Herjavec named in ONEflight lawsuit, denies equity stake

What case was filed?

Mark Heimbouch filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, case number 1:26-cv-05403. The public docket lists ONEflight entities, founder Ferren Rajput, sales executives Mark Dismuke and Mark Sanchez, and Herjavec as defendants. It records a complaint and a plaintiff’s jury demand—not a judgment. Justia Dockets & Filings ↗

The dispute follows the broker’s September flight suspension. Our earlier ONEflight coverage explains the announced pause and the questions it raised about trips and prepaid balances. This article addresses the separate October filing involving Herjavec.

What does the customer allege?

Heimbouch alleges that Herjavec’s endorsements helped persuade him to buy jet-card services. The complaint describes a promotional and equity partnership; the claimed equity relationship is disputed by Herjavec. U.S. District Court filing, via Private Jet Card Comparisons ↗

According to the complaint, Heimbouch wired another $95,000 on September 15, one day before the suspension, leaving at least $741,456.23 unreturned. He alleges that requests for repayment and a recall of the final wire were unsuccessful. These are the plaintiff’s claims, not independently audited account balances. U.S. District Court filing, via Private Jet Card Comparisons ↗

The filing includes fraud, deceptive-trade-practice, conspiracy and unjust-enrichment claims against all defendants. It seeks at least $741,456.23 in compensatory damages, approximately $2.22 million in statutory treble damages, and other relief. Requested damages are not an award or a recovery forecast. U.S. District Court filing, via Private Jet Card Comparisons ↗

How has Herjavec responded?

Herjavec told Private Jet Card Comparisons that he had no equity participation in ONEflight and no knowledge of its finances. He said the company and its founder had deceived him too, expressed sympathy for those affected, and said he was pursuing his own lawsuit. PJS has not independently verified that a separate action has been filed. Private Jet Card Comparisons ↗

That response matters: appearing in a company’s advertising and owning an equity stake are different propositions. The complaint’s characterization should not be repeated as an established ownership fact. Private Jet Card Comparisons reported that ONEflight and the former sales executives did not respond to its request for comment; that was the publication’s outreach, not PJS’s. Private Jet Card Comparisons ↗

What the documents do—and do not—establish

The available docket confirms that a civil complaint was filed. It does not establish that the allegations are true or that any defendant is liable. The Justia docket snapshot was last retrieved on October 22; it is not a complete, current record of later proceedings. Justia Dockets & Filings ↗

Readers should distinguish three things: what a customer alleges, how a defendant responds, and what a court eventually decides. This report does not establish a criminal conviction, a bankruptcy filing, a payout to customers or a date when flights will resume.

For jet-card buyers: look beyond the endorsement

Our takeaway is practical: a recognizable spokesperson does not answer the questions in a prepaid-flying agreement. Before comparing an advertised hourly rate, ask the provider to explain the payment arrangement in writing. These questions apply across providers; they are not findings about any defendant in this case.

Keep the provider’s answers alongside the signed agreement; an advertising claim is not a substitute for either. For a decision-focused next step, compare jet cards with on-demand charter and use our private jet booking checklist. Anyone seeking recovery of an existing balance should obtain advice specific to their contract and circumstances.