throbber
Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6292 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
`COMMISSION,
`
`v.
`
`BLOCKVEST, LLC, et al.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` Case No.: 18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR
`ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
`FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS
`[ECF No. 93]
`
`Defendants.
`
` Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Securities and Exchange Commission’s
`
`“Motion for Terminating Sanctions” [ECF No. 93], Defendants’ Opposition [ECF No. 99],
`
`and Plaintiff’s Reply in support of its motion for terminating sanction [ECF No. 102]. This
`
`Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge Gonzalo P.
`
`Curiel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72.1(c) of the United States
`
`District Court for the Southern District of California. For the reasons set forth below, the
`
`Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for terminating sanctions be GRANTED.
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`1
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6293 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a
`
`Complaint against Defendants Blockvest, LLC (“Blockvest”) and Reginald Buddy Ringgold,
`
`III a/k/a Rasool Abdul Rahim El (“Ringgold”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff states that
`
`Defendant Blockvest, a limited liability company, and Defendant Ringgold, Blockvest’s
`
`founder and principal, offer and sell unregistered securities in the form of digital assets
`
`called “BLVs,” and seeks to stop investment fraud involving an initial coin offering
`
`(“ICO”)1 by Defendants. (See id.; see also id. at 2, 4-5.) The Complaint further alleges
`
`that Blockvest claims to be the “first [U.S.] licensed and regulated tokenized crypto
`
`currency exchange and index fund,” that it has already raised more than $2.5 million in
`
`pre-ICO sales of its BLVs, and it will raise $100 million during its ICO to fund Blockvest’s
`
`digital asset-related financial products and services. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that
`
`Defendants falsely claim that their ICO has been “registered” and “approved” by the SEC
`
`and other regulators, and that Defendants have partnered with and are audited by
`
`Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. (Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants
`
`created a fictitious regulatory agency, the Blockchain Exchange Commission (“BEC”), in
`
`order to create legitimacy and an impression that their investment is safe. (Id.)
`
`Plaintiff claims that Defendants do not have the required regulatory approvals and
`
`the established business relationships they claim to have, because the BLV offering is not
`
`
`
`1 An ICO is a fundraising event where an entity offers participants a unique digital coin, token, or
`digital asset in exchange for consideration, frequently in the form of virtual currency, such as Bitcoin
`and Ether, or fiat currency. (Id. at 7.) Digital assets issued in an ICO entitle their holders to certain
`rights related to a venture underlying the ICO, including rights to profits, shares of assets, use of
`certain services provided by the issuer, and voting rights. (Id. at 7-8.) Digital assets may also be listed
`on online trading platforms, and are tradable for virtual or fiat currencies. (Id. at 8.) ICOs are typically
`announced and promoted through public online channels. (Id.) Generally, to participate, investors are
`required to transfer funds to the issuer’s address, online wallet, or other account. (Id.) After the
`completion of the ICO, the issuer distributes its unique digital assets (“tokens”) to the participants’
`unique addresses on the blockchain. (Id.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6294 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`“U.S. SEC approved,” nor is it approved by any other U.S. financial regulator, the BEC is
`
`not affiliated with the SEC, and Blockvest is not affiliated with the name-brand
`
`companies whose logos appear in its marketing materials. (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff
`
`contends that investors’ assets therefore lack the safety and protections that
`
`Defendants are falsely portraying in their scheme to raise money through Blockvest’s
`
`planned ICO and ongoing pre-sales. (Id. at 3.)
`
`Plaintiff asserts the following five causes of action: (1) fraud in connection with
`
`the purchase or sale of securities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
`
`Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5(b); (2) fraud in connection with the
`
`purchase or sale of securities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules
`
`10b-5(a) and 10b-5(c); (3) fraud in the offer or sale of securities, in violation of Section
`
`17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”); (4) fraud in the offer or sale of
`
`securities, in violation of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act; and
`
`(5) unregistered offer and sale of securities, in violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the
`
`Securities Act. (Id. at 2, 24-28.) Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks an order temporarily,
`
`preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from violating the federal securities
`
`laws, and enjoining Defendant Ringgold from participating in an offer or sale of digital or
`
`other securities, or making misrepresentations regarding regulatory approval in
`
`connection with such offerings; a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
`
`injunction freezing Defendants’ assets, requiring accounting from each Defendant, and
`
`prohibiting destruction of documents; disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten gains; and
`
`payment of civil monetary penalties. (Id. at 3, 29-30.)
`
`On October 3, 2018, Plaintiff also filed an ex parte application for a temporary
`
`restraining order (“TRO”). (ECF No. 3.) On October 5, 2018, District Judge Curiel
`
`granted Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO, freezing assets, prohibiting destruction
`
`of documents, granting expedited discovery, and requiring an accounting. (ECF Nos. 5 &
`
`6.) The District Judge found that Plaintiff had made a prima facie showing based on
`
`Defendants’ marketing and advertising through websites and media posts of Blockvest
`3
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6295 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`and its ICO, that BLV tokens were “securities.” (ECF No. 5 at 8-9.) The District Judge also
`
`issued an “Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction and Orders: (1) Freezing
`
`Assets; (2) Prohibiting the Destruction of Documents; (3) Granting Expedited Discovery;
`
`and (4) Requiring Accountings” and set a hearing for October 18, 2018. (ECF No. 6 at 12-
`
`13.) The District Judge subsequently granted the parties’ two joint motions to extend
`
`the TRO and the hearing on the order to show cause until November 16, 2018. (ECF Nos.
`
`15 & 17.)
`
`In support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, on
`
`November 13, 2018, Defendants filed investor declarations, which included declarations
`
`from Chris Russell [ECF No. 32-6 at 67-68], Quintin Dorsey [ECF No. 32-8 at 6], and
`
`Jacqueline Wartanian [ECF No. 32-8 at 4]; and on November 20, 2020—a declaration
`
`from Amanda Vaculik [ECF No. 40-2 at 2]. On November 16, 2018, District Judge Curiel
`
`held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF No. 37], and on
`
`November 27, 2018—issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion [ECF No. 41]. The order
`
`cited, among other documents, investor declarations that Defendants filed in support of
`
`their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (See ECF No. 41.) The
`
`District Judge concluded that in light of the evidence presented by Defendants, there
`
`were disputed factual issues as to the nature of investments offered to the alleged
`
`investors, and without full discovery, the Court could not determine “whether the BLV
`
`token offered to the 32 test investors was a ‘security’” and “whether the 17 individuals
`
`who invested in Rosegold purchased ‘securities’ as defined under the federal securities
`
`law.” (Id. at 13-14.) The District Judge also found that Plaintiff failed to show a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Defendants would repeat their violations because “it is
`
`disputed whether there have been past violations.” (Id. at 15-16.)
`
`Defendants filed an Answer on December 14, 2018. (ECF No. 43.) On
`
`December 17, 2018, Plaintiff moved for partial reconsideration of the District Court’s
`
`November 27, 2018 order. (ECF No. 44.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6296 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`On February 14, 2019, the District Judge granted in part Plaintiff’s motion and
`
`preliminarily enjoined Defendants’ violations of the antifraud provisions of the
`
`Securities Act. (ECF No. 61.) In the order, the District Judge cited Defendants’ evidence
`
`concerning the Rosegold investors and testers to conclude that there was a factual
`
`dispute about whether those individuals purchased securities. (Id. at 13-14.) The
`
`District Judge “denie[d] Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration as to the offers or
`
`promises made to the 32 test investors and 17 individual investors.” (Id. at 14.)
`
`On December 27, 2018, Corrigan & Morris LLP, moved to withdraw as counsel for
`
`Defendants Blockvest and Ringgold. (ECF No. 47.) District Judge Curiel granted defense
`
`counsel’s request to withdraw as counsel on February 14, 2019, and gave Defendants
`
`until March 15, 2019, to obtain substitute counsel. (ECF No. 62.) In the order, Judge
`
`Curiel noted that as a limited liability corporation, Defendant Blockvest could not
`
`proceed in federal court without counsel, and expressly cautioned Blockvest “that if it
`
`fails to obtain new counsel and have counsel file a notice of appearance, it may be
`
`subject to default proceedings.” (Id. at 3-4.) On March 18, 2019, Judge Curiel granted
`
`Defendants’ ex parte request for additional time to obtain counsel and continued the
`
`deadline until March 29, 2019. (ECF No. 64.) To date, no counsel has entered an
`
`appearance on behalf of Defendants. (See Docket.)
`
`On February 11, 2019, this Court held an Early Neutral Evaluation Conference, and
`
`on April 22, 2019–a follow-up Settlement Conference. (ECF Nos. 59 & 71.) On April 24,
`
`2019, the Court issued a scheduling order that set, among other deadlines,
`
`September 9, 2019, as the deadline for fact discovery, December 26, 2019, as the
`
`deadline for expert discovery, and January 27, 2020, as the deadline to file pretrial
`
`motions. (ECF No. 72 at 1, 3.)
`
`On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte motion for terminating
`
`sanctions, which was referred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 93 & 94.) On January 24, 2020,
`
`Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgement, which is currently pending before the
`
`District Judge. (ECF No. 96.)
`
`5
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6297 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`In the instant motion, Plaintiff SEC moves for terminating sanctions against
`
`Defendants Blockvest and Ringgold pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority. (Pl.’s
`
`Mot. for Terminating Sanctions (“Mot”) 13-14, 20, ECF No. 93-1.)
`
`II. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`District courts have inherent power to impose sanctions for “conduct which
`
`abuses the judicial process.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991); see
`
`also Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d 951, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (“There are two sources of
`
`authority under which a district court can sanction a party who has despoiled evidence:
`
`the inherent power of federal courts to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation
`
`practices, and the availability of sanctions under Rule 37 . . . .”). District courts have
`
`inherent power to impose sanctions, including default or dismissal, when a party has
`
`“willfully deceived the court and engaged in conduct utterly inconsistent with the
`
`orderly administration of justice.” Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 762 F.2d 1334,
`
`1338 (9th Cir. 1985); see also TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 916 (9th
`
`Cir. 1987) (“Courts have inherent equitable powers to dismiss actions or enter default
`
`16
`
`judgments[.]”).
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Terminating sanctions are a severe remedy, and should be imposed only in
`
`extreme circumstances, “where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of
`
`the party.’” In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted);
`
`see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337, 348 (9th Cir.
`
`1995) (terminating sanctions are warranted where “a party has engaged deliberately in
`
`deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.”). “The most
`
`critical criterion for the imposition of a dismissal sanction is that the misconduct
`
`penalized must relate to matters in controversy in such a way as to interfere with the
`
`rightful decision of the case. This rule is rooted in general due process concerns. There
`
`must be a nexus between the party’s actionable conduct and the merits of his case.”
`
`Tripati v. Corizon Inc., 713 F. App’x 710, 711 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Halaco Eng’g Co. v.
`
`Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 381 (9th Cir. 1988)).
`
`6
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6298 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`In deciding whether to impose terminating sanctions, courts must weigh the
`
`following factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
`
`court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking
`
`sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the
`
`availability of less drastic sanctions.” Leon, 464 F.3d at 958 (quoting Anheuser–Busch,
`
`69 F.3d at 348). In most cases, the first two factors weigh in favor of the imposition of
`
`sanctions, and the fourth factor typically weighs against a default or dismissal sanction.
`
`Stars’ Desert Inn Hotel & Country Club, Inc. v. Hwang, 105 F.3d 521, 524 (9th Cir. 1997).
`
`“Thus the key factors are prejudice and availability of lesser sanctions.” Id. (quotation
`
`omitted); see also Valley Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.
`
`1998) (when considering evidentiary, issue or terminating sanctions, factors three and
`
`12
`
`five “are decisive.”).
`
`13
`
`While the district court need not make explicit findings regarding each of the five
`
`14
`
`factors, a finding of “willfulness, fault, or bad faith” is required for dismissal or default
`
`judgment to be proper. See Leon, 464 F.3d at 958; Anheuser–Busch, 69 F.3d at 348.
`
`“Where a party so damages the integrity of the discovery process that there can never
`
`be assurance of proceeding on the true facts, a case dispositive sanction may be
`
`appropriate.” Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091,
`
`1096 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1058).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Plaintiff moves for terminating sanctions against Defendants pursuant to the
`
`Court’s inherent authority, arguing that Defendants willfully and in bad faith deceived
`
`the Court by filing forged and false declarations in support of their opposition to
`
`Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (Mot. at 5, 13-14, 20.) Plaintiff asserts
`
`that subsequent discovery revealed that the filed declarations “obscured critical details”
`
`that the declarants were unaffiliated individuals who were provided Blockvest’s
`
`fraudulent promotional materials by Defendants and their commissioned sales agents
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`7
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6299 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`before their investments, and that at least four of the declarations were knowingly
`
`deceptive or forged. (Id. at 7-8.)
`
`Specifically, Plaintiff contends that the declaration of an alleged Rosegold
`
`investor, Christopher Russell, was filed with the Court with a forged signature of the
`
`declarant and contained numerous false statements. (See id. at 5, 8-9.) Plaintiff further
`
`states that Defendant Ringgold asked at least two supposed testers, Quintin Dorsey and
`
`Jacqueline Wartanian, to sign false declarations, concealing that they had trusted
`
`Ringgold with their money because they were his former Online Trading Academy
`
`students, and expected a return from real Blockvest tokens that they purchased after
`
`reviewing Blockvest’s promotional materials Ringgold provided. (Id. at 5-6.) Plaintiff
`
`also contends that Ringgold directed his affiliate, Amanda Vaculik, to lie during her
`
`interview with SEC, and to submit a false declaration to support a fabricated story about
`
`a $147,000 payment allegedly made for Blockvest’s development. (Id. at 6.)
`
`Plaintiff argues that because Defendants willfully misled the Court concerning a
`
`central legal issue in this case through the submission of knowingly false and forged
`
`declarations, the “false materials so tainted the credibility of any defense evidence, that
`
`there is no reason for the Court to review this evidence for a triable issue of fact.” (Id.
`
`at 6.) Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to impose terminating sanctions in the form of
`
`default judgement against Defendants. (Id. at 13-14, 20.) If the Court is not willing to
`
`impose terminating sanctions, Plaintiff seeks an order of preclusion and adverse
`
`inference, precluding Defendants from relying on any of the investor declarations, and
`
`to draw adverse inferences concerning whether Defendants sold those investors
`
`Blockvest securities. (Id. at 6, 20.)
`
`In his Opposition, Defendant Ringgold asks the Court to deny Plaintiff’s motion.
`
`(Opp’n (“Opp’n”) 13, ECF No. 99-1.) Ringgold argues that terminating sanctions are not
`
`warranted, because Defendants did not destroy or withhold evidence, and did not
`
`disobey a discovery order; rather, Defendants acted under “intense time constraints”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6300 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`imposed by this litigation, and Ringgold was not accountable for any alleged misconduct
`
`of non-parties. (See id. at 6-8, 11-13).
`
`Ringgold initially contends that Defendants were deprived of “due process” when
`
`Plaintiff seized their cash, “depriv[ed] them of counsel, and order[ed] them to conduct
`
`no further business.” (Id. at 5.) He further asserts that Plaintiff employed coercion
`
`tactics to induce Dorsey, Wartanian, and Vaculik to perjure themselves. (Id. at 11.)
`
`Ringgold states that his former counsel did their best to “draft the declarations correctly
`
`under intense time constraints,” but acknowledges that “it is highly possible that the
`
`[defense] counsel inaccurately carried over statements from the prior drafted
`
`declarations to those of the Russell, Dorsey & Wartani[a]n[.]” (Id.) Ringgold maintains
`
`that if the Court is inclined to impose sanctions, it should issue an order precluding him
`
`from “offering the forged Declaration at trial.” (Id. at 12.) In the alternative, Ringgold
`
`seeks an order allowing him to “resubmit the declarations in the form of Notarized
`
`Affidavit of Facts form Quint[i]n Dorsey, Jackie Wartanian & Christopher Russel in lieu of
`
`15
`
`sanctions.” (Id. at 13.)
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff replies that Defendants submitted four knowingly forged or false
`
`declarations to the District Court, and Judge Curiel relied on this false evidence when he
`
`initially denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, which resulted in
`
`protracted litigation, delayed relief for the victims of the Blockvest digital asset scheme,
`
`and caused irreparable harm to the Court, Plaintiff, and Blockvest investors. (Pl.’s Reply
`
`(“Reply”) 2, ECF No. 102.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have not submitted any
`
`evidence to refute the falsity of the declarations at issue, admitted that “it is highly
`
`possible that the [defense] counsel inaccurately carried over statements from the prior
`
`drafted declarations,” and have not taken any steps to withdraw the false evidence. (Id.
`
`(citing Opp’n at 11-12).) Plaintiff also contends that Defendants’ misconduct was willful,
`
`and Defendants’ continued failure to accept responsibility for their actions warrants
`
`terminating sanctions. (Reply at 2.) Plaintiff further argues that at this stage of the
`
`proceedings, after discovery closed and its motion for summary judgment has been
`9
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6301 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`filed, the only “meaningful sanction” is an order of default liability against Defendants
`
`Blockvest and Ringgold. (Id. at 2, 10.)
`
`I.
`
`Declarations at Issue
`
`A. Declaration of Christopher Russell
`
`1. Version of the declaration filed by Defendants
`
`On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed Christopher Russell’s declaration in
`
`support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (ECF No.
`
`32-6 at 67-68; see also Decl. of Brent W. Wilner in Supp. of Pl.’s SEC’s Mot. for
`
`Terminating Sanctions (“Wilner Decl.”) 2, ECF No. 93-2; id., Ex. 3.) Russell’s declaration
`
`was signed under the penalty of perjury. (ECF No. 32-6 at 68.) The declaration stated,
`
`inter alia, the following:
`
`• Russell considers himself a “sophisticated investor.” (Id. at 67.)
`
`• “Before I sent any money to Rosegold Investments LLP, I did not review or rely
`
`on Rosegold Investments LLP’s website or any offering documents or anything on the
`
`internet about Rosegold Investments LLP.” (Id.)
`
`• “Before sending any money to Rosegold Investments LLP, I did not review or
`
`rely on the Blockvest Website or Whitepaper or anything else on the internet about
`
`Blockvest.” (Id.)
`
`• “Before sending my money to Rosegold Investments, I did not review or rely
`
`on Reginald Ringgold’s web page, LinkedIn page, or anything else on the internet having
`
`to do with Mr. Ringgold.” (Id. at 68.)
`
`• Russell sent his money to Rosegold based “solely” on his personal relationship
`
`with his friend Michael Sheppard, and “not based on any specific representation about
`
`anything specific on the internet or otherwise.” (Id.)
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`10
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6302 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`2. Evidence obtained during the course of discovery
`
`On November 13, 2018, Russell’s friend, Blockvest sales agent Chase Pfohl, e-
`
`mailed Russell a proposed version of his declaration drafted by Defendants. (Wilner
`
`Decl. at 2, Ex. 4 at 100-02; Ex. 22 at 181-83.) On the same day, November 13, 2018,
`
`Defendants filed a declaration with an electronic signature bearing Russell’s name. (See
`
`ECF No. 32-6 at 67-68.) Russell testified that on November 14, 2018, one day after his
`
`alleged declaration was filed with the Court, he sent Sheppard, Blockvest’s CFO, his
`
`actual signed declaration. (See Wilner Decl. at 2-3; Ex. 5 at 104; Ex. 22 at 197-200.)
`
`Russell sent the declaration as a PDF file so that nobody could change the declaration
`
`afterwards. (Wilner Decl., Ex. 5 at 104; Ex. 22 at 197.)
`
`The declaration Russel authorized and signed [ECF No. 93-2 at 106-107; see
`
`also Wilner Decl. at 3, Ex. 4] drastically differed from the declaration Defendants filed on
`
`13
`
`his behalf:
`
`• Russell omits the word “sophisticated” from “I consider myself a sophisticated
`
`Investor.” (ECF No. 93-2 at 106.)
`
`• Russell omits the statement that he did not review or rely on Rosegold’s
`
`website, or anything on the internet or other documents about Rosegold. (See id. at
`
`106-07.)
`
`• Russell omits the statement that he did not rely on Blockvest’s website or
`
`anything else on the internet about Blockvest. (See id.)
`
`• Russell omits the statement that he did not review or rely on Reginal
`
`Ringgold’s web page, LinkedIn page, or anything else on the internet concerning Mr.
`
`Ringgold. (See id.)
`
`• Russell omits the statement that he sent money to Rosegold based solely on
`
`his personal relationship with his friend Michael Sheppard, and not based on any
`
`specific representation about anything specific on the internet or otherwise; Russell says
`
`it was the “primary reason” he invested. (See id. at 106.)
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6303 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`Accordingly, in his authorized declaration, Russell omitted the word
`
`“sophisticated” from “I consider myself a sophisticated investor,” which appear in the
`
`Court-filed version of the declaration. (Wilner Decl., Ex. 22 at 183-85, 204-05; see also
`
`ECF No. 32-6 at 67.) Further, according to Russell’s deposition testimony, the
`
`Defendants’ version of the declaration contained statements that Russell had never
`
`seen, including the statement that he had never reviewed or relied on Blockvest’s
`
`promotional materials or website. (Wilner Decl., Exs. 3, 4 & 6; Ex. 22 at 165-68; see also
`
`ECF No. 32-6 at 67-68.) After his investment, Russell continued to believe he had
`
`acquired BLV tokens based on his account statement available on Blockvest’s website.
`
`(Wilner Decl., Ex. 22 at 176-78.) Based on Blockvest’s promotional materials and other
`
`representations by the company’s personnel, Russell expected to profit from those
`
`tokens based on the efforts of Ringgold and Blockvest’s management to make the
`
`company successful. (Id. at 179-80, 192-94.)
`
`With respect to the paragraph in the version of the declaration Defendants filed
`
`with the Court, stating that Russell sent his money to Rosegold based solely on his
`
`personal relationship with his friend Sheppard, “and not based on any specific
`
`representation about anything specific on the Internet or otherwise,” Russell testified
`
`that he did not authorize anybody to make that representation on his behalf because it
`
`was false. (Id. at 209; see also ECF No. 32-6 at 68.) He testified that he reviewed
`
`numerous marketing materials and information about Blockvest on the Internet, and
`
`those materials and information influenced his decision to make the $3,000 purchase of
`
`Blockvest tokens. (Id. at 191, 209.)
`
`Russell also stated the following during his testimony:
`
`Q. So someone under your name adds this paragraph that you had
`never reviewed the Blockvest website or white paper or anything else on
`the Internet about Blockvest, right?
`A. Correct.
`Q. That’s false, right?
`A. Yes.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6304 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Q. Because you did, in fact, review the Blockvest website before you
`decided to purchase, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And you did review other materials about Blockvest before you
`decided to purchase, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. So someone added a completely fabricated statement under your
`name to the Court; is that right?
`A. Yes.
`
`
`
`(Id. at 206-07 (emphasis added).) Russell also testified as follows:
`
`Q. And, in fact, what you testified to earlier is that there was
`information about Mr. Ringgold in some of the materials you reviewed
`about Blockvest, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And you reviewed those in connection with—prior to your
`purchase of Blockvest tokens, correct?
`A. Yes.
`Q. So this paragraph’s false also, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And, again, somebody added a false paragraph under your name
`to the Court?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And it wasn’t you, right?
`A. Yes.
`Q. And you didn’t authorize them to do that, right?
`A. Correct.
`
`
`(Id. at 208 (emphasis added).)
`
`Russell testified that he did not authorize Blockvest or Ringgold to file his signed
`
`declaration with the Court one day before he provided his actual signed declaration to
`
`them. (Id. at 197, 201-05.) Russell also testified that no one from Blockvest told him
`
`that they were going to make changes to his authorized declaration. (Id. at 200.) When
`
`asked whether he has “ever seen a version of the declaration that Blockvest and Mr.
`
`Ringgold filed on [Russell’s] behalf with the Court? Did they ever send you a copy of
`
`that?,” Russell answered, “No.” (Id. (emphasis added).) Notably, Russell testified that
`13
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-MSB Document 113 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.6305 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`the version of the declaration filed with the Court is “false.” (Id. at 205 (emphasis
`
`added).)
`
`Defendant Ringgold testified that he did not personally forge Russell’s signature.
`
`(Wilner Decl., Ex. 28 at 373-83.) When Ringgold was asked during his deposition
`
`whether he “ha[d] a concern that the [Russell declaration] that was filed with the court
`
`might have been a forgery,” Ringgold answered “Correct.” (Id. at 383.)
`
`B. Declaration of Quintin Dorsey
`
`1. Declaration filed by Defendants
`
`On November 13, 2018, Defendants filed Quintin Dorsey’s declaration in support
`
`of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. (See Wilner Decl. at
`
`3, Ex. 8 at 11; see also ECF No. 32-8 at 6.) The declaration, inter alia, contained the
`
`12
`
`following statements:
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`• “I never intended to make an investment and made no investment
`
`decision, but wanted to help test the exchange for future use and believed I would get
`
`my money back, less the transaction fees charged by third-parties.” (ECF No. 32-8 at 6.)
`
`• “I knew I could not receive BLV token because they could not be removed
`
`from the platform and had no value.” (Id.)
`
`2. Evidence obtained during the course of discovery
`
`On July 15, 2019, Dorsey was deposed and testified that he was a former student
`
`of Ringgold at the Online Trading Academy. (Wilner Decl., Ex. 23 at 212, 214.) In a
`
`March 1, 2018 e-mail, Sheppard sent Dorsey promotional materials providing “an
`
`overview of the Blockvest cryptocurrency token,” which Sheppard claimed was a
`
`“[g]reat investment opportunity to make a quick 100% return on your investment.”
`
`(Wilner Decl., Ex. 10 at 115.) In an April 22, 2018 e-mail, Ringgold wrote to Dorsey, “I
`
`want to thank personally for you investment interest in the project,” attaching links to
`
`Blockvest’s materials, including the website, whitepaper, ICO video, and Form D notice
`
`of exempt offering of securities filed with the SEC. (Wilner Decl., Ex. 11 at 117
`
`(emphasis added).) Ringgold added, “[f]or your investment you will receive 10,000 BLV
`14
`
`18cv2287-GPC (MSB)
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cv-02287-GPC-M

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket