Default judgement sought against Gilmond & Napier

Following the denial of motions to dismiss clawback litigation filed against them, Trudy Gilmond and Jerry Napier have ceased co-operating with the court-appointed Receiver.

In response, Zeek Rewards Receiver has now requested the court enter default judgement against both of them.

Gilmond and Napier’s respective motions to dismiss were
denied
 last December.

The duo had also filed a
troll’ish counter-claim
, demanding the Receiver pay them $947,000.

The counter-claim was 
also denied
 by Judge Mullen back in January.

As the clawback case progressed, February saw
class-certification granted
. This meant that Gilmond and Napier, along with their fellow top Zeek investors, would now represent all of the net-winners in clawback litigation.

In granting the Receiver’s Motion for Class Certification, the Court held that all Named Defendants, including Ms. Gilmond and her company, would need to “provide the Receiver with any and all evidence of their financial status and the location of all net winnings received from ZeekRewards, including deposition testimony as to the same.”

For Trudy Gilmond, here’s how that went down:

The Receiver noticed Defendants’ deposition for April 3, 2015 in Vermont, Ms. Gilmond’s state of residence.

Gilmond’s lawyer withdrew from the case after she was served with notification of the deposition, with the Receiver then ensuring service by personally serving her via email (the address obtained from her former lawyer).

In spite of the Court’s Order and repeated notice, Ms. Gilmond has refused to appear for her noticed deposition.

When the deposition was first noticed, Ms. Gilmond refused to confirm through counsel that she would appear for the deposition.

Then, once her former counsel withdrew from the case, the Receiver attempted on March 18, 2015 to confirm directly with her that she would appear.

On March 23rd, Gilmond sent the Receiver the following response:

In communications with Ms. Gilmond, the Receiver offered to be flexible on the logistics of the deposition if another date was more convenient for Ms. Gilmond.

But, the Receiver further explained to Ms. Gilmond that if she did not appear, the Receiver planned to move the Court for an Entry of Judgment against her and her company for the full amount of her net winnings plus interest.

Ms. Gilmond’s only response was that she would not attend the deposition.

Later on March 23, 2015, the Receiver again offered to conduct the deposition on a different day if it was more convenient for

Ms. Gilmond. Id.

Now, a month later, the Receiver has never even received a response to this March 23 email.

Well gee, I wonder why one of Zeek’s top Ponzi pimps objects to being deposed as to her fraudulently obtained winnings.

Luckily for the interests of justice, whether Trudy Gilmond objects to being deposed is neither here nor there.

In sum, it seems clear that Ms. Gilmond does not intend to appear for a deposition or produce the related requested documents. She h

🤖 Quick Answer

What legal action has the Zeek Rewards Receiver initiated against Gilmond and Napier?

Why did Gilmond and Napier file a counter-claim in this case?
Gilmond and Napier filed a counter-claim demanding the Receiver pay them $947,000, though this claim was subsequently denied by Judge Mullen in January.

What is the significance of the class certification granted in February?
Class certification established that Gilmond, Napier, and other top Zeek investors would collectively represent all net-winners in the clawback litigation, expanding the scope and impact of the proceedings.

🔗 Related Articles

- SEC use Sloan’s post TelexFree activity against her
- BidForMyMeds threaten legal action over review
- SEC file $23.5M Wings Network Ponzi scheme lawsuit
- Athene Network Ponzi sued for trademark infringement
- DOJ want DFRF Enterprises civil case discovery stayed