Lohr v. Gilman
Decision Date | 30 March 2017 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1931-L. |
Parties | Claudette LOHR, Plaintiff, v. Paul GILMAN; Raymond McGlamery; Raymond McGlamery; Frederick D. Minton PhD.; Marlane Minton; Oil Migration Group, LLC; and Wavetech29, LLC, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Mark A. Castillo, Joshua L. Shepherd, Curtis Castillo PC, Michael H. Myers, The Silvera Firm, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Toby M. Galloway, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Fort Worth, TX, Philip H. Hilder, Hilder & Associates PC, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
Before the court are: Defendant Raymond McGlamery's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), filed September 28, 2015; Defendants Fred and Marlane Minton's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 20), filed September 28, 2015; and Defendants Paul Gilman, Oil Migration Group, LLC, and Wavetech29, LLC's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), filed September 28, 2015. After careful consideration of the motions, responses, replies, pleadings, and applicable law, the court grants Defendant Raymond McGlamery's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; grants in part and denies in part Defendants Fred and Marlane Minton's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; and grants in part and denies in part Defendants Paul Gilman, Oil Migration Group, LLC, and Wavetech29, LLC's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint.
This case arises from an alleged fraudulent investment scheme in oil and gas and bio-fuel companies. Plaintiff Claudette Lohr ("Lohr" or "Plaintiff"), a widow living in Dallas, Texas, brings this private securities fraud action against Defendants and alleges that, acting in concert, they fraudulently induced her into making a total investment of $540,000 in two companies—Oil Migration Group, Inc. ("OMG") and Wavetech29, LLC ("Wavetech")—both of which she contends are sham enterprises. According to Plaintiff, Defendants falsely promoted these enterprises to her as owning, or owning a license to, cutting edge audio technology that affects oil viscosity and oil recovery procedures (hereinafter the "OMG Technology" and the "Water Separation Technology"). Plaintiff alleges that she was induced by Defendants' myriad fraudulent statements about the technology to invest in OMG and Wavetech, and charges that Defendants made these misrepresentations knowingly and willfully, or in reckless disregard of their falsity, and that she relied on the statements to her detriment. The court now sets out the facts upon which it relies in deciding the pending motions to dismiss, accepting all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Sonnier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007). The facts are drawn from Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("Complaint"), the live pleading. See Compl. (Doc. 15).
In or about late 2013, Plaintiff met Defendant Marlane Minton ("Mrs. Minton") at a Bible study at a church they both attended. Mrs. Minton often discussed oil and gas businesses and bio-fuel businesses in which she and her husband, Defendant Frederick Minton ("Mr. Minton") (sometimes collectively, the "Mintons") allegedly invested. Mrs. Minton seemed especially interested in discussing the Mintons' alleged investments with widows who attended the Bible study. In or about 2014, Plaintiff learned that Mrs. Minton had dental surgery and prepared a meal, which she took to the Minton home, at which time Mr. Minton discussed investing in OMG. The Mintons told Plaintiff that they had met Defendant Paul Gilman ("Gilman") in connection with their investments in the movie industry, and that Gilman was seeking investments in OMG and Wavetech to obtain funding for additional testing and to pursue patents for the OMG Technology. The Mintons told Plaintiff that Gilman was about to meet with investors in New York to raise money to file for patents and for further testing of the OMG Technology. The Mintons also told Plaintiff that time was of the essence to invest in OMG and Wavetech, as the value of the two entities was certain to increase as Gilman continued to prove the application of the OMG Technology in various areas of the oil and gas industry. The Mintons assured Plaintiff that Gilman would sell his concept through OMG and Wavetech, and that she would receive a return on her investment prior to the end of 2014. The Mintons made these false representations with the intent that Plaintiff would rely upon them and invest in OMG and Wavetech.
After Plaintiff expressed an interest in investing in OMG and Wavetech, the Mintons introduced her to Gilman. Plaintiff alleges that Gilman, acting at all times as a representative and owner of OMG and Wavetech, enticed Plaintiff to invest initially in OMG, and later in Wavetech, by making, among others, the following fraudulent representations:
Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that Gilman's representations concerning OMG and OMG Technology were false and were made only to induce Plaintiff into investing in OMG. Plaintiff further alleges, on information and belief, that representations about technology and possible deployment of the technology were false and made for the purpose of assuring Plaintiff that the OMG Technology and her investment in OMG were legitimate, and to induce her into making further investments.
On or about February 7, 2014, Gilman e-mailed Plaintiff a "Memorandum of Understanding" in a further attempt to induce her to invest in OMG. See Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), attached as Exhibit 1 to Complaint. Neither Gilman nor Plaintiff executed the MOU, although that fact did not dissuade Gilman from accepting Plaintiff's money on behalf of OMG. The MOU references a "Non–Disclosure Agreement," but Plaintiff never received or executed any such document. Later that same day, Gilman e-mailed Plaintiff instructions to wire her "investment" in OMG to an account held in Gilman's name at City National Bank (the "Gilman Account"), located in Beverly Hills, California. On or about February 10, 2014, in reliance upon the Mintons' and Gilman's representations detailed above, Plaintiff wired $40,000 to the Gilman Account for what Gilman described as a 2% ownership and/or equity interest in OMG.
On February 25, 2014, more than two weeks after Plaintiff wired the $40,000 to the Gilman Account, Defendant Raymond McGlamery ("McGlamery") formed OMG by filing a certificate of formation with the Texas Secretary of State. See Certificate of Formation, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Complaint. The Certificate of Formation lists McGlamery and Gilman as OMG's "Managers." Id. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that McGlamery filed the Certificate of Formation with the Texas Secretary of State "to give an air of legitimacy to the scheme that Gilman, McGlamery, and the Mintons had concocted to trick people into investing in OMG, including, but not limited to," Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 36.
Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that McGlamery knew of Gilman's false representations, knew she had invested in OMG, personally benefited from Gilman's false representations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Main v. Am. Airlines Inc., Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-00473-O.
-
Newell-Davis v. Phillips
...Ret. Sys. of Mich. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. , 935 F.3d 424, 436 (5th Cir. 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting Lohr v. Gilman , 248 F. Supp. 3d 796, 810 (N.D. Tex. 2017) ).112 Rec. Doc. 33 at 21.113 Sibley , 477 So. 2d at 1107.114 Rec. Doc. 1 at 21.115 Id. at 8.116 Id. at 13.117 ...
-
Lohr v. Gilman
...scheme in oil and gas and bio-fuel companies. See Dkt. No. 31 (Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint); Lohr v. Gilman, 248 F. Supp. 3d 796, 799-804 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2017) (summarizing Lohr's allegations). Lohr's allegations concerning the Mintons are as follows: Lohr, a widow living in Da......
-
Mun. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mich. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc.
...these ads in their response to the motion to dismiss their amended complaint—they did not plead these facts. See Lohr v. Gilman , 248 F. Supp. 3d 796, 810 (N.D. Tex. 2017) ("A plaintiff may not amend [its] complaint in [its] response to a motion to dismiss."). In addition, as Pier 1 points ......