Digital Media Law Project
Published on Digital Media Law Project (https://www.dmlp.org)

Home > Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam

Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam [1]

Submitted by DMLP Staff on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 11:18

Summary

Threat Type: 

Lawsuit

Date: 

03/04/2009

Status: 

Pending

Disposition: 

Injunction Issued
Material Removed

Location: 

California

Verdict or Settlement Amount: 

N/A

Legal Claims: 

Conversion
Cybersquatting
Defamation
Extortion
RICO
Tortious Interference
Trade Libel
Trade Secrets
Unfair Competition
On March 4, 2009, Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively "Monex"), two companies in the precious metals business, filed a lawsuit suit against Jason Gilliam, Richard Gilliam, and Steven Bowman for publishing allegedly defamatory statements on the website MonexFRAUD.com and... read full description
Parties

Party Receiving Legal Threat: 

Richard Gilliam; Jason Gilliam; Steven Bowman

Type of Party: 

Organization

Type of Party: 

Individual

Location of Party: 

  • California

Location of Party: 

  • California
  • Canada

Legal Counsel: 

Neil A. Goteiner and Scott Andrews - Farella Braun & Martel LLP

Legal Counsel: 

Jason Gilliam - Pro Se
Description

On March 4, 2009, Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively "Monex"), two companies in the precious metals business, filed a lawsuit suit against Jason Gilliam, Richard Gilliam, and Steven Bowman for publishing allegedly defamatory statements on the website MonexFRAUD.com and attempting to extort money from Monex.  Monex initially sued in California state court, but the Gilliams removed the case to federal court.

In its complaint, Monex claims that the Gilliams and Bowman threatened to "continue to libel Monex on their website, . . . share information with government regulators, and . . . interfere with Monex's relationships with investors and banks" unless the company paid them $15 million dollars.  According the complaint, the defendants called Monex's president a "ruthless sociopath" and the firm's sales pitch "flat-out lies," in addition to other comments.  Monex alleges that the defendants made these false statements on MonexFRAUD.com and in comments posted on other websites, including YouTube and Digg.

In addition to defamation and extortion, Monex's complaint alleges cyberpiracy, unfair competition, racketeering, interference with contract, attempted conversion, trade libel, interference with prospective economic advantage, and trade secret misappropriation. The Gilliams, father and son, allegedly lost approximately $32,000 with Monex.  On March 16, Jason Gilliam filed counter claims against Monex, including racketeering and breach of fiduciary duties.

On March 24, 2009, a federal court in California granted Monex's request for a temporary restraining order against the Gilliams and Bowman, expiring on April 7, 2009. The temporary restraining order prohibits them from taking any steps to extort money from Monex by (1) threatening to publish information about Monex on any forum or share information about Monex with third parties, or (2) threatening to defame Monex or its employees.  The order also barred them from retaining, disclosing, or using any Monex trade secret or proprietary information. 

The court also ordered the Gilliams and Bowman to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, continuing the terms of the temporary restraining order until judgment or dismissal.  If granted, the preliminary injunction would also bar the defendants from "publishing or republishing any negative statements about Monex on any website" and require them to "remove, from any website over which they have sufficient control, all negative material about Monex that they have published or republished there, and to stop using the word MonexFRAUD."  It would also bar them from operating the MonexFRAUD website or any "other websites critical of Monex."  

Update:

04/09/09 -The court issued a preliminary injunction [2], prohibiting the defendants from (1) making any efforts to extort money from Monex by threatening to publish or share information about Monex or defame Monex or its employees; (2) operating www.MonexFRAUD.com or any other website using the Monex name in combination with any modifier that implies illegal, unlawful or unethical conduct; (3) publishing or republishing on any website, including www.MonexFRAUD.com, any statement that "Monex does not have title to or the ability to deliver precious metals sold under contract to any Monex customer; that Monex was expelled from the National Futures Association for fraud; that Monex operates a boiler room; that Monex violates any federal or state statutes regulating the business operations of Monex; that Monex has been charged by the Internal Revenue Service with tax evasion; and that Monex fails to accurately disclose to customers account and trading terms (collectively "Prohibited Statements"); (4) disclosing, using, or retaining any trade secret documentation or other proprietary information belonging to Monex.  The injunction also requires the defendants to remove all previously published Prohibited Statements within 24 hours.  It does not prohibit the defendants from (a) making statements regarding their own business dealings with Monex, including losses they have sustained; or (b) communicating with any governmental entity concerning matters within the scope of that entity's legislative, administrative, or regulatory responsibilities.

05/07/2009- Monex filed an amended complaint [3] in district court. 

Related Links: 

  • OC Register: Gold bullion dealer sues O.C. Men over 'extortion caper' [4]
Details

Web Site(s) Involved: 

www.monexfraud.com [5] (defunct)

www.youtube.com
[6]

http://digg.com [7]

www.cartogis.org [8]

http://goldismoney.info/forums/
[9]

http://americannepali.blogspot.com/ [10]

Content Type: 

  • Text

Publication Medium: 

Forum
Website

Subject Area: 

  • Defamation
  • Trade Secrets
  • Trade Libel
  • Prior Restraints
  • Business Torts
  • User Comments or Submissions
Court Information & Documents

Jurisdiction: 

  • California

Source of Law: 

  • California

Court Name: 

United States District Court for the Central District of California; Superior Court of California, County of Orange

Court Type: 

Federal

Case Number: 

8:09-cv-00287-JVS-RNB (federal); 30-2009, 00249439 (state)

Relevant Documents: 

PDF icon 2009-03-09-Monex v. Gilliam Removal and Complaint Part I.pdf [11]
PDF icon 2009-03-09-Monex v. Gilliam Removal and Complaint Part II.pdf [12]
PDF icon 2009-03-16-Gilliam Answer.pdf [13]
PDF icon 2009-03-16-Gilliam Counter Claim.pdf [14]
PDF icon 2009-03-23-Monex Request for Temporary Restraining Order.pdf [15]
PDF icon 2009-03-24-Monex v. Gilliam Findings of Fact and Law.pdf [16]
PDF icon 2009-03-25-Monex v. Gilliam Order.pdf [17]
PDF icon 2009-04-02-HSBC Motion ot Quash.pdf [18]
PDF icon 2009-04-07-Monex v. Gilliam Hearing Minutes.pdf [19]
PDF icon 2009-04-09-Monex v. Gilliam Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Preliminary Injunction.pdf [20]
PDF icon 2009-05-07-Monex Amended Complaint.pdf [21]
CMLP Information (Private)

Priority: 

1-High

CMLP Notes: 

Source: OCRegister.com

UPDATED 7/24/09- AVM added information on amended complaint and uploaded am. compl.

 

DMLP Logo


Source URL (modified on 08/20/2014 - 11:09pm): https://www.dmlp.org/threats/monex-deposit-co-v-gilliam

Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/monex-deposit-co-v-gilliam
[2] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-04-09-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Findings%20of%20Fact,%20Conclusions%20of%20Law,%20and%20Preliminary%20Injunction.pdf
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-05-07-Monex Amended Complaint.pdf
[4] http://www.ocregister.com/articles/monex-company-gilliams-2345637-say-million
[5] http://www.monexfraud.com
[6] https://www.dmlp.org/www.youtube.com
[7] http://digg.com/
[8] http://www.cartogis.org
[9] http://goldismoney.info/forums/
[10] http://americannepali.blogspot.com/
[11] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-09-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Removal%20and%20Complaint%20Part%20I.pdf
[12] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-09-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Removal%20and%20Complaint%20Part%20II.pdf
[13] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-16-Gilliam%20Answer.pdf
[14] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-16-Gilliam%20Counter%20Claim.pdf
[15] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-23-Monex%20Request%20for%20Temporary%20Restraining%20Order.pdf
[16] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-24-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Findings%20of%20Fact%20and%20Law.pdf
[17] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-03-25-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Order.pdf
[18] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-04-02-HSBC%20Motion%20ot%20Quash.pdf
[19] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-04-07-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Hearing%20Minutes.pdf
[20] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-04-09-Monex%20v.%20Gilliam%20Findings%20of%20Fact%2C%20Conclusions%20of%20Law%2C%20and%20Preliminary%20Injunction.pdf
[21] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2009-05-07-Monex%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf