United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
MATTHEW E. ORSO, in his capacity as court-appointed Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, Plaintiff,
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.
C. Mullen United States District Judge
matter is before the Court upon the Receiver's Motion for
Summary Judgment against Remaining Defendants Disputing
Receiver's Net Winnings Calculations, filed August 28,
2019. (Doc. No. 258). Ninety-seven of the Net Winners failed
to respond to the Receiver's motion after the Court's
issuance of a Roseboro notice, and the Court entered
an Order on December 3, 2019 granting the Receiver's
motion as to these Net Winners. (Doc. No. 316). Defendant
Martin Postal filed a pro se response in opposition
to the Receiver's motion (Doc. No. 298), and the Receiver
filed a Reply (Doc. No. 307). This Order addresses the
Receiver's motion as to Postal only.
factual background of the ZeekRewards Ponzi scheme is set
forth in detail in the Summary Judgment Order entered on
December 29, 2016 (the “2016 Summary Judgment
Order”) in favor of the Receiver against the named
Defendants in this action. (Doc. No. 142). In the same Order,
the Court also granted summary judgment against the Net
Winner Class as to all liability issues. These judgments
were finalized in the Final Judgment Order. (Doc. No. 148).
only remaining issue left to resolve in this case is the
actual amount of money that each of the remaining members of
the Net Winner Class is required to return. To facilitate
resolution of this issue, the Court entered an Order on
Process for Determining the Amount of Final Judgments against
Net Winner Class Members (“Process Order”). (Doc.
No. 153). The Process Order provided a procedure allowing Net
Winners to dispute the calculations offered by the Receiver,
including recourse to a special master to adjudicate disputes
concerning the amounts of net winnings. Defendant Postal did
not seek referral to the special master appointed by the
well-settled that “[a] party opposing a properly
supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest
upon the mere allegations or denials of [his] pleadings,'
but rather must ‘set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Bouchat
v. Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc., 346 F.3d 514,
522 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e),
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. 574 586-87
(1986)). Where the party opposing summary judgment fails to
respond to a summary judgment motion with evidence
demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material
fact, summary judgment is appropriate. See Bouchat,
346 F.3d at 525 (affirming award of summary judgment for
defendants where plaintiff “failed to offer any
nonspeculative evidence demonstrating the existence of a
genuine dispute of material fact”); Dash v.
Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 333 (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming
award of summary judgment for defendant where plaintiff
failed to provide nonspeculative evidence of damages);
see also Process Order (Doc. No. 153) at ¶ 5
(specifying that responding class members must provide a
specific alternative calculation supported by evidence, and
that “in responding to the Receiver's calculation
of their Net Winnings, the Net Winners must “set forth
specific facts that go beyond the mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence.” (citing Glynn v. EDO
Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013))).
Response offers no evidence to support an alternative
calculation of Postal's net winnings. However, Postal
appears to contest liability by stating that he
“believed the company was totally above board and
honest” and took “compliance courses”
offered by ZeekRewards. See Response. This Court has
already issued a judgment establishing the liability of Net
Winners, including Postal. See 2016 Summary Judgment
Order (Doc. No. 142); see also Affidavit of Matthew
E. Orso, Exhibit A to Memorandum in Support of Receiver's
Motion for Summary Judgment Against Remaining Net Winners,
(Doc. No. 259), (establishing that Postal is a member of the
Net Winner Class and the amount of his net winnings).
Postal's unsupported denial of liability is insufficient
to prevent summary judgment in the Receiver's favor.
Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Receiver's
Motion for Summary Judgment against Remaining Defendants
Disputing Receiver's Net Winnings Calculations is hereby
GRANTED as to Defendant Postal in the amount of $40, 000.
 Certain members of the Defendant class
appealed the Court's 2016 Summary Judgment Order. Despite
finding that this Court had erred in certain respects, the
Fourth Circuit nonetheless affirmed. See Bell ...