Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam

January 5, 2010

MONEX DEPOSIT CO., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JASON GILLIAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. James V. Selna

JUDGMENT ON EXTORTION IN FAVOR OF MONEX DEPOSIT CO. AND MONEX CREDIT CO., AND AGAINST JASON GILLIAM; PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER ALLOWING JUDGMENT UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b) AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment be entered against defendant Jason Gilliam and in favor of plaintiffs Monex Deposit Co. and Monex Credit Co. on plaintiffs' claim of extortion.

The Court finds the following facts and makes the following conclusions of law:

1. The Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs and defendants Jason Gilliam and Richard Gilliam, and over the subject matter of this civil action.

2. Monex Deposit Company and Monex Credit Company (collectively, "Monex") is a retail dealer in precious metals, transacting sales and purchases with members of the public. Monex thus has economic relationships with its customers and potential customers.

3. Jason Gilliam was the owner and operator of, and contributor to, the website www.MonexFraud.com.

4. Monex's relationship with at least one of its active customers, John Barton, had a probable future economic benefit to Monex.

5. Defendants Jason and Richard Gilliam knew of the economic relationships Monex had with its customers and potential customers in part because the Gilliams had been Monex customers themselves.

6. Jason Gilliam intentionally tried to disrupt, through his publications on the MonexFraud.com website, the relationships between Monex and its customers.

7. Jason Gilliam's intentional attempts to disrupt these relationships was independently wrongful because those attempts were part of his attempt to extort $15 million from Monex, for which he is independently liable, for the reasons set forth below.

8. Mr. Barton decided not to do further business with Monex because he read allegations about Monex on www.MonexFraud.com. Jason Gilliam therefore interrupted Monex's economic relationship with Mr. Barton. Mr. Barton went on to do business with one of Monex's competitors. He said he would have conducted this business with Monex had www.MonexFraud.com (and therefore Jason Gilliam) not influenced him.

9. Jason Gilliam and MonexFraud.com economically harmed Monex by causing it to lose business, including that of Mr. Barton.

10. On February 13, 2009, Jason Gilliam delivered a written correspondence to Monex in the form of a demand letter and a "Plan of Action."

11. The letter and "Plan of Action" expressed and implied threats listed in California Penal Code Section 519, including publicly to accuse Monex of crimes, to expose Monex's alleged crimes, to expose Monex secrets, such as a Monex "Position Report" document containing trade secrets, and to do an unlawful ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.