Court responds to ROFX victims’ motion for default judgment
Jonathan Goodman, Magistrate Judge, has issued recommendations in response to the motions for default judgment filed by victims of fraudulent Forex scheme ROFX.net.
In this nine-count, civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case, Plaintiffs raise a host of claims against 42 defendants arising from the creation and operation of RoFx, an allegedly fraudulent investment service.
According to a Court-Ordered administrative status report, 26 Defendants have had a Clerk’s default entered against them, seven Defendants have not yet been served, three Defendants are in settlement discussions with Plaintiffs, and six Defendants have been dismissed.
Since that administrative status report was filed, the Court dismissed without prejudice six additional Defendants and Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal against three additional Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ motions request that the Court enter a default judgment against the following Defendants: Peter Mohylny; The Investing Online; Ester Holdings, Inc.; Wealthy Developments LP; VDD-Trading, Ltd.; Dmytro Fokin; Ivan Hrechaniuk; Manuchar Daraselia; Brass Marker s.r.o.; Sergiy Prokopenko; Profit Media Group LP; Auro Advantages, LLC; Borys Konovalenko; Mayon Holding Ltd.; Marina Garda; Mayon Solutions Ltd. (“Mayon UK”); Olga Tielly; Notus, LLC; Global E-Advantages, LLC; Alla Skala; Olga Abrykosova; Easy Com, LLC; ShopoStar, LLC; Grovee, LLC; Trans-Konsalt MR Ltd.; Art Sea Group Ltd.; and Mayon Solutions, LLC.
United States District Court Judge Robert N. Scola referred both motions to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendations. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant in part and deny in part the motions.
By way of summary, the Magistrate Judge made the following recommendations as to each count/Defendant:
- Count I (RICO): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment;
- Count II (RICO Conspiracy): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment;
- Count III (Common Law Fraud): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment on Count III in whole against Defendants Mohylny and The Investing Online. Further, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court grant Plaintiffs Leonov, Zarley, and Parent’s request for default judgment against Defendant Ester Holdings and deny Plaintiffs Birmingham’s and Hansen’s request for default judgment against Defendant Ester Holdings;
- Count IV (Conspiracy to Commit Fraud): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment;
- Count V (Aiding and Abetting Fraud): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment;
- Count VII (Conspiracy to Commit Conversion): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment;
- Count VIII (Aiding and Abetting Conversion): The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request for a default judgment;
- Count IX (Unjust Enrichment): The Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the District Court grant Plaintiffs’ request for default judgment against Wealthy Developments, Notus, Global E-Advantages, Easy Com, ShopoStar, Grovee, Trans-Konsalt, Art Sea Group, VDD, Brass Marker, Profit Medica Group, and Auro Advantages. Further, he recommends that the District Court deny Plaintiffs’ request as to all other Defendants.
The parties will have 14 days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendations within which to file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Each party may file a response to the other party’s objection within 14 days.