Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gil Mond

Gil Mond

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,219|Likes:
Published by jmaglich1
gilmond
gilmond

More info:

Published by: jmaglich1 on Jul 03, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
 NPCHLT1:701590.1-PG-(RWW) 053920-00001
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
 _______________________________________________ KENNETH D. BELL, in his capacity as court- appointed Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com Plaintiff, vs. TODD DISNER, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust; TRUDY GILMOND; TRUDY GILMOND, LLC; JERRY NAPIER; DARREN MILLER; RHONDA GATES; DAVID SORRELLS; INNOVATION MARKETING, LLC; AARON ANDREWS; SHARA ANDREWS; GLOBAL INTERNET FORMULA, INC.; T. LEMONT SILVER; KAREN SILVER; MICHAEL VAN LEEUWEN; DURANT BROCKETT; DAVID KETTNER; MARY KETTNER; P.A.W.S. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; LORI JEAN WEBER; and a Defendant Class of Net Winners in ZEEKREWARDS.COM; Defendants.  _______________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:14-cv-91 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, TRUDY GILMOND AND TRUDY GILMOND, LLC FIRST DEFENSE (Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims in this action; therefore, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 3:14-cv-00091-GCM Document 33 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 35
 
2
 NPCHLT1:701590.1-PG-(RWW) 053920-00001
 
SECOND DEFENSE (Lack of Standing/Capacity)
Plaintiff lacks standing or capacity to bring claims against Defendants on behalf of and as representative for a putative class of “net losers”; therefore, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rules 9, 12(b)(6), 17, and 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THIRD DEFENSE (Lack of Capacity and Failure to Join Necessary Party)
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants, as representative parties of a putative class of “net winners”, are improper because Defendants and the purported members of the  putative class do not qualify as a class for a class action treatment, and Plaintiff has failed to join the other alleged “net winners” (including the alleged 8,980, more or less, “net winners” not named in this action and all alleged “net winners” residing outside of the United States), which are necessary parties; therefore, this action should be dismissed  pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and (7), 17, 19, and 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
FOURTH DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim)
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; therefore, this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 3:14-cv-00091-GCM Document 33 Filed 06/30/14 Page 2 of 35
 
3
 NPCHLT1:701590.1-PG-(RWW) 053920-00001
 
FIFTH DEFENSE (Answers to Allegations in Complaint)
Answering the allegations contained within the Complaint, Defendant, Trudy Gilmond and Trudy Gilmond, LLC, say: 1. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a  belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, except it is denied that RVG operated a “Ponzi or pyramid scheme”. 2. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a  belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, except it is denied that RVG made any promises or guarantees regarding payouts or returns to participants. 3. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a  belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, except it is denied that RVG operated a “Ponzi or pyramid scheme”. 4. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a  belief as to the truth of the allegations contained within Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, except it is denied that RVG operated a “Ponzi or pyramid scheme”, that Defendants engaged in any unlawful conduct, that funds were fraudulently transferred by RVG to Defendants, that Defendants “won” anything by RVG to Defendants, or that they obtained money from alleged “victims”. 5. The allegations contained within Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are admitted on information and belief.
Case 3:14-cv-00091-GCM Document 33 Filed 06/30/14 Page 3 of 35

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->