Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02507/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02507-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTON EWING,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EMPIRE CAPITAL FUNDING GROUP, 

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17cv2507-LAB (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Dkt 113];

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1. Joint Motion to Dismiss between Ewing and Ascend Funding

Plaintiff Anton Ewing and the only non-defaulted defendant remaining in this case, 

Ascend Funding, LLC, have jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. That motion 

is GRANTED and Ewing’s claims against Ascend Funding are DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs and fees. Dkt. 113. 

2. Ewing’s Claims against the Remaining Defendants

The clerk previously entered default against several other defendants in this case,1

but those defaults were entered more than a year ago and Ewing has taken no further action 

since. As such, the Court finds that Ewing has unreasonably delayed in prosecuting his 

 

1 The clerk entered default against Resolve Holdings Corp (Dkt. 37), Wayne Shirreffs (Dkt. 

51), SMS Ventures, Inc. (Dkt. 51), Prosperify Consulting, LLC (Dkt. 60), and Empire Capital 

(Dkt. 70). Ewing voluntarily dismissed two other defendants, Shore Funding Solutions, Inc. 

(Dkt. 81) and Business First Funding Corp. (Dkt. 83). The Court dismissed Ewing’s claims 

against defendant Peter Tafeen with prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. 96).

Case 3:17-cv-02507-LAB-MDD Document 115 Filed 04/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

claims against these defendants and DISMISSES THOSE CLAIMS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Compounding this failure to prosecute—and as an alternative ground for 

dismissal—is the fact that these defendants should not have been included in the same suit 

to begin with. As best the Court can discern from Ewing’s pleadings, the various defendants 

have nothing in common except that they all happen to be telemarketers who called him in 

late 2017. By way of example, Ewing’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. 84, makes 

the following allegations concerning the defaulted defendants:

• Defendant Empire Capital Funding Group, Inc., a New York corporation 

located at 95 West Broadway, Suite 211, New York, New York 10007 

(herein “Empire”). Empire, through Javier Mejia and Jose Martinez and 

others, called multiple times on December 6, 2017, including one call at 

7:01AM, from 845-366-5858, 347-230-8492, 917-246-3113 and 631-292-

4099;

• Defendant Prosperify Consulting, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company (herein “Prosperify”). Prosperify used 469-609-7256 to call 

multiple times. Plaintiff recorded many of the illegal and harassing calls 

because PC §653m is an exception listed in PC §633.5. Prosperify 

employees got rather nasty in those calls and it will be very interesting to 

play them to the jury. Plaintiff sued Prosperify for one call made on July 

20, 2017 in Superior Court and won. This lawsuit is not claiming that call 

again but rather for the other calls also made by Prosperify that violate 

the TCPA and constitute wire fraud; and

• Defendant SMS Ventures, Inc, a New York corporation is owned by 

Defendant Wayne Shirreffs along with Defendant Resolve Holdings 

Corp, a Florida corporation. Wayne Shirreffs is no stranger to be sued 

for TCPA violations. He lost case number 15cv03931 in district court in 

South Carolina which was a TCPA class action case. Shirreffs is an 

arrogant, pompous and angry person who just does not get it. He needs 

to be taught a lesson- that is, to obey the law. Shirreffs, Resolve and 

SMS sometimes use the dba of Sprout Lending and they called Plaintiff 

on 12/13/2017 multiple times.

FRCP 20(a)(2) permits joinder of defendants only if the “right to relief . . . aris[es] out 

of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and any 

question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” (emphasis added). 

While each of these defendants (or groups of defendants) may have violated the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, they did so on separate occasions and in unrelated ways. There 

Case 3:17-cv-02507-LAB-MDD Document 115 Filed 04/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is no common transaction or occurrence that links the defendants to Ewing and one another, 

so their joinder in the same suit is improper. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th 

Cir.2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different suits.”); 

Williams v. Guzman, 2011 WL 1047968, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“In asserting two unrelated 

claims against different defendants, plaintiff has violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

20(a)(2).”); Wynn v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (“The 

mere assertion that [defendants] are members of a common industry is not sufficient to 

satisfy the requirement that the right to relief against all Defendants arises out of the same 

transaction or occurrence.”). The Court passes no judgment on the merits of Ewing’s claims 

against these defendants; indeed, the dismissal is made without prejudice specifically so 

that he may reassert the claims if he wishes.2 But if he chooses to do that, he’ll need to 

bring the claims in separate suits. 

3. Conclusion

The parties’ joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Ewing’s claims against Ascend 

Funding, LLC are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dkt. 113. Ewing’s claims against 

defendants Empire Capital Funding Group, Inc., Prosperify Consulting, LLC, SMS Ventures,

Inc., Wayne Shirreffs, and Resolve Holdings Corp. are DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. Ascend Funding’s motion to declare Ewing a vexatious litigant is DENIED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. Dkt. 101. The clerk is directed to close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 17, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

 

2 TCPA claims enjoy a four-year statute of limitations, meaning Ewing has more than two 

years to reassert those claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a). CIPA claims have only a one-year 

statute of limitations, but would be equitably tolled for the duration they were pending in this 

Court. See Wisenbaker v. Farwell, 341 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1168 (D. Nev. 2004) (equitably 

tolling plaintiff’s reasserted claims “for the time during which his prior dismissed action was 

pending before the previous federal district court.”). 

Case 3:17-cv-02507-LAB-MDD Document 115 Filed 04/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3