“It’s like watching the blind lead the blind…”
Having likely colluded with fellow defendant Todd Disner, David Sorrells sought to escape the default judgement rendered against him back in July.
Like Disner, Sorrells figured if he ignored the clawback litigation filed against him, that he wouldn’t have to return the Ponzi funds he stole from Zeek Rewards victims.
Like Disner, yesterday Sorrells’ actions caught up with him.
Sorrells approach to the clawback litigation mirrored
that of Disner
.
Sorrells was personally served with the Summons and Complaint by means of a process server on May 14, 2014.
After the extended June 30, 2014 deadline for filing an answer had passed with no filing by Mr. Sorrells, the Receiver filed a Motion for Entry of Default against Sorrells on July 2, 2014.
The Clerk of Court entered default against Sorrells on July 3, 2014.
On July 9, 2014, the Receiver filed a Motion for Default Judgment, which requests that the Clerk of Court enter judgment against Sorrells for the sum certain amount of $1,197,241.12.
This is when Sorrells finally took the clawback litigation seriously. Well, sort of.
Two weeks later Sorrells filed his pro se response and affidavit in opposition to the Receiver’s motion. His brief appears to be a copy of a filing made by another litigant, Todd Disner.
Taking Disner’s lead (Disner is well-versed in wasting time in Ponzi litigation), Sorrells hoped to have the default judgement entered against him reversed.
Here’s how that panned out:
The Court finds that
Mr. Sorrells has failed to act with reasonable promptness.
He was personally served with the Summons and Complaint nearly three months before he finally filed a document in this lawsuit, which came after both the entry of default and the Receiver’s Motion for Default Judgment.
Moreover,
Mr. Sorrells provides no justification whatsoever for his delay.
Instead, he simply objects to the Receiver’s calculation of his net winnings, without providing the amount he contends that he won or any evidentiary basis to refute the Receiver’s records.
Furthermore,
Mr. Sorrells fails to assert a meritorious defense.
He does nothing more than allege that the Receiver’s calculation of net winnings is incorrect, that the affidavit does not contain sufficient detail regarding the records of payments from RVG to Sorells, and that he was paid under a business agreement for activities that were“designed to drive income into Zeek Rewards.”
These vague statements fall well short of asserting a meritorious defense.
Mr. Sorrells is personally responsible for his failure to plead.
And then comes the precise moment where the fictional bubble-world Sorrells surrounded himself in bursts:
In the related SEC action Sorrells, along with two other named defendants in this action, filed two significant motions challenging the Receiver’s activities.
First, Sorrells and his co-movants filed a Motion to Appoint Attorney ad Litem / Examiner for Affiliates.
In ad
🤖 Quick Answer
What was the outcome of David Sorrells' appeal against the default judgement?
The appeal was denied and the $1.19 million default judgement was upheld. Sorrells had been served with legal documents in May 2014 and failed to respond by the June 30 deadline, leading to the default judgement entered in July 2014 related to Ponzi funds from Zeek Rewards.
What strategy did Sorrells employ in the clawback litigation?
Sorrells attempted to ignore the clawback litigation proceedings, mirroring the approach taken by co-defendant Todd Disner. By refusing to participate in the legal process, he sought to avoid returning the stolen Ponzi scheme funds to victims, a tactic that ultimately proved unsuccessful.
🔗 Related Articles
- Easy Cycler Review: Five-tier matrix cycler Ponzi
- Crypto-T Review: 2.12% to 3.075% daily ROI Ponzi scheme
- Chinese protesters demand Hong Kong MLM regulation
- Blue Bird Bids Review: Zeek Rewards Ponzi clone
- BrandOnline365 Review: JubiRev without the Ponzi