1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

MATTHEW FINSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

TAYLOR CHRISTOFFERSEN, SAMUEL

CHARLES CARY, BRADY FARRELL, and

ADDISON BRADLEY BACHMAN,

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Matthew Finston, through counsel, states as follows for his Verified Complaint 

against Defendants Taylor Christoffersen, Samuel Charles Cary, Brady Farrell, and Addison 

Bradley Bachman (“Defendants”):

1. Matthew Finston is a New York resident who maintains his principal residence in 

New York, New York.

2. Taylor Christoffersen is a Kansas resident who maintains his principal residence 

at 1356 155th, Olathe, Kansas 66062.

3. Samuel Charles Cary is a Texas resident who maintains his principal residence at 

17810 White Tail Court, Houston, Texas 77084.

4. Brady Farrell is an Arizona resident who maintains his principal residence at 

32203 North 16th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85085.

5. Addison Bradley Bachman is a New Mexico resident who maintains his principal 

residence in Columbus, New Mexico.

Case 2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 6
2

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants are the owners, operators, and 

administrators of the website www.mmj.today.

7. Upon information and belief, www.mmj.today is not owned or operated by an 

independent corporation or partnership.

8. www.mmj.today is a website purporting to “inform the community about the 

science, industry, lifestyle, health, business and politics surrounding medical marijuana around 

the world and related industry subjects.” 

9. www.mmj.today is viewable, and has been viewed, by residents in the state of 

Michigan.

10. Jurisdiction is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 because 

the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the dispute is between citizens of different States 

and a foreign state.

11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because each 

of the defendants are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction.

General Allegations

12. Finston is an online author who writes about investing and corporations.

13. Fisnton regularly posts articles on a website seekingalpha.com, where he has 

posted at least 75 articles on a wide variety of subjects.

14. Finston has published a number of articles regarding companies that are vying to 

supply the anticipated legal marijuana market in Canada.

15. On occasion, Finston has been critical of a company called CEN Biotech.

16. CEN Biotech trades under the symbol FITX.

Case 2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 6
3

17. Defendants, through www.mmj.today, published an article on May 8, 2015 

entitled “Potential Criminal Indictment of Stock Basher Matthew Finston.” (Ex. A, the 

“Article”.)

18. Defendants appear to have updated the Article since May 8, 2015 to include the 

words “From our viewpoint” and “allegedly.” Such statements do not make the article any less 

defamatory.

19. The Article maliciously and falsely claims that Finston “has engaged in obvious 

and admitted fraudulent conduct and willful misrepresentations with the intent to manipulate the 

price of FITX and cause a loss of value to shareholder’s stock – as sellers or purchasers. His 

alleged fraudulent conduct satisfies all of the elements . . . necessary to constitute a Rule 10b-5 

violation.” (Ex. A.)

20. The Article is defamatory. Finston has not engaged in fraudulent conduct, and 

Finston has not made willful misrepresentations to manipulate stock prices or cause a loss of 

value to shareholder’s stock.

21. The Article was published maliciously, with knowledge that it was false, or with 

reckless disregard as to whether it was false. 

22. On May 10, 2015, Finston demanded a retraction of the Article. (Ex. B.)

23. Defendants did not respond to Finston’s demand for retraction, and Defendants 

have not removed the article from the website.

24. The Article constitutes defamation per se, which is independently actionable 

pursuant to MCL 600.2911.

25. Finston has been damaged as a result of the Article.

26. Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.

Case 2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 6
4

Count I - Defamation

27. Finston incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully 

set forth here.

28. The Article makes false and defamatory statements about Finston.

29. Specifically, the Article falsely states that Finston committed a crime by 

fraudulently manipulating stock prices.

30. The Article is capable of being viewed by anyone in the world with internet 

access.

31. The Article was published maliciously, with knowledge that it was false, or with 

reckless disregard as to whether it was false.

32. The Article was per se defamatory pursuant to MCL 600.2911(1).

33. Finston has been damaged by the Article.

34. Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.

Count II – False Light Invasion of Privacy

35. Finston incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully 

set forth here.

36. The Article placed Finston in a false light in the public eye.

37. The Article gave Finston unwanted publicity.

38. Upon information and belief, the Article was viewed by thousands of people, if 

not millions of people, because it is capable of being viewed by anyone in the world with internet 

access.

39. Defendants knew or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the Article 

and the false light in which it placed Finston.

Case 2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 6
5

40. Finston has been damaged by the Article.

41. Finston seeks judgment as set forth below.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Finston respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment:

A. Awarding Finston money damages sufficient to compensate him for all forms of 

economic loss including, without limitation, actual, incidental, consequential, and/or exemplary 

damages;

B. Awarding Finston punitive damages pursuant to MCL 600.2911;

C. Awarding Finston all legal fees and costs associated with bringing this lawsuit; 

and

D. Awarding Finston any and all such other relief as this Court deems just, equitable 

and appropriate under the circumstances.

Jury Demand

Finston demands a jury for all matters so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

BOYLE BURDETT

By:/s/H. William Burdett, Jr.

 Eugene H. Boyle, Jr. (P42023)

 H. William Burdett, Jr. (P63185)

14950 East Jefferson, Suite 200

Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan 48230

(313) 344-4000

burdett@boyleburdett.com

Dated: June 4, 2015 Attorneys for Matthew Finston

Case 2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 6
Verittcatio盤

1,Matthew Finston,ve薇 敢 thtt the bregoing statements are

trlle and correct,to the best ofl■ y knowiedge,inforFnatiOn and

beliei l ttFtheF Ve轟 争 凛nder penaity of peJury that the

foregoing stttement is true and corect.

懸

17 -

Matthew Finston

STATE OF NEW YORK

) SS

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

SubSCFibed and swom to before me thisitt day Of

2015,by Matthew Finston.

K〔 Vl"HERED:ス

Notary PIb111.state Of New York

p・J帯 孵議 鸞 鑑 彗磁y

My Comrnissior! Erpires Juo 3r,i01S

Case 2:15-cv-12013-AJT-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 06/04/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 6