PENSACOLA.— A lawsuit was filed in Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, on Sept. 11 against Global CT & PET Imaging and Rod D. Martin of Destin over a business deal involving medical equipment.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of plaintiffs Catherine D. Martin, trustee, and grantor David A. Martin (no relation to the defendant), by Ohio-based Weston Hurd LLP. The allegations against the defendants include conversion – civil theft, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and punitive damages as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
In June 2017, the plaintiff was approached by the defendant regarding a business opportunity that involved “providing equipment, related products and services to physicians and health care groups relative to the adoption and use of positron emission tomography (PET) medical diagnostic imaging,” according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs invested $250,000 to “acquire its equity interest in Global CT,” in July 2017. Included in the subscription documents was an “accredited investor” form, per federal securities laws. Martin “properly disclosed that the Trust was an irrevocable trust—as opposed to a revocable trust.”
The trust, in turn, did not meet the requirements on its own to constitute an “accredited investor.” Nevertheless, the defendants approved the trust’s investment, “and improperly accepted the funds from a non-accredited investor.”
After the investment, the defendants then disclosed to the plaintiffs that Global CT was preparing to change its name to “Martin Imaging” because of a public relation’s concern “due to a former employee who had made a sexual harassment allegation against a managerial-level employee of Global CT.”
Additionally, the plaintiffs’ requests for “necessary and relevant financial and tax records relating to the operation of Global CT” were not granted.
According to the filing, Global CT was “not operating as a going-concern in the manner described by Rod Martin during the time that he was soliciting the Trust’s investment.”
Rather, the plaintiffs believed that the company was being operated in a “Ponzi-like fashion.”
The plaintiffs repeatedly demanded, in writing, the refund of the trust’s $250,000 investment.
Despite the requests, the defendants “failed and refused to repay the Trust the money it invested,” prompting the three counts in the lawsuit, as well as attorney’s fees, costs and interest.
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division Case 3:18-cv-02093