0%
Pourtemour's ownership of TEXO — plus 20% of the Xcel book.
Superior Court of California · County of Orange
Unlimited Civil
Penal Code § 496(c)
A theft case. Not a commission dispute.
He exported the database. Seized the CRM. Told the customers TEXO had "rebranded." Routed 293 deals into companies he controlled — then sold a 51% stake in the book for $16,426,683.72.
Scroll to read the file
01 — The Summary
What the complaint alleges.
"This is a theft case, not a commission dispute."
Ryan Pourtemour and Joseph Vincent built TEXO Enterprises LLC as a 50/50 venture. A written agreement made each of them a fifty-percent owner; a separate split gave Pourtemour a twenty-percent interest in the Xcel Services Group book. Vincent has admitted, under oath, that the two men "were 50/50 partners." [Ex. A2, A3, B]
According to the complaint, Vincent set the takeover up months in advance — quietly moving TEXO's bank, its billing, and its software administration into his own hands. Then, one day after Pourtemour refused an ownership ultimatum, Vincent allegedly seized TEXO's Copper CRM under a false "technical support" pretext, moved the account to a personal Gmail, and locked his partner out of the company's own customer database. [Ex. D2]
He then allegedly routed identifiable TEXO accounts — Mercedes-Benz R&D, Tesla, Netskope, Pala Casino, SiTime — into Vinco.io and Xcel, while telling customers TEXO had shut down and "rebranded." A year to the day after cutting TEXO off, Bridgepointe-affiliated entities bought the very same book of business for $16.4 million, on a warranty swearing no third party had a claim and no litigation was pending. Both representations, the complaint alleges, were false. [Ex. F, H, R]
0 days
From Bridgepointe swearing "no claim" to appearing on the buyer's side.
$0
Paid by Bridgepointe to Vincent's personal entity during the dispute.
$0
TEXO commissions disclosed as omitted from the accounting — in June 2026.
02 — The Players
Each named for a reason.
The complaint sorts every defendant by the role they allegedly played in the same chain of property.
Defendant 01Took it.
Joseph Vincent
Pourtemour's business partner. Alleged to have moved control of TEXO's bank, billing, and systems into his own hands, exported the book, seized the CRM, diverted the accounts, sold the assets, and warranted clean title to the buyers.
Vinco.io LLC · Vincent Investment Consulting Corp. dba Xcel Services Group
Defendant 02Concealed it.
Bridgepointe Technologies, Inc.
Kept the commission ledger and knew which accounts were TEXO's — yet told the Court in a verified interpleader that it had "no title or claim" to the commissions, while paying Vincent's personal entity $19,000 a month.
CEO Scott Evars, sworn: "Bridgepointe has no interest in the outcome of this litigation." [Ex. Z]
Defendant 03Bought it.
Bridgepointe Technologies, LLC · BPT3 TopCo LLC
Sixty-three days after Bridgepointe swore it had no claim, these entities appeared on the purchaser side of the sale of the same commission stream — the $16.4M IAPCA.
Purchaser & acquisition structure [Ex. H, I2]
Defendant 04Holds it.
Charlesbank Capital Partners, LLC
Acquired its interest through BPT3 TopCo. Warned in writing in May 2025 that the acquired assets included stolen TEXO property — and, the complaint alleges, continued to retain the benefit and refused to account for or return Pourtemour's share.
Delaware · IAPCA notice structure [Ex. H, I1, AA]
03 — The Timeline
Built the levers first. Then pulled them.
Dec 2020Two months before the dispute
A $1.35M loan
On information and belief, Bridgepointe's owners loan Vincent roughly $1.35 million to buy a home — a financial tie that predates everything that follows.
Feb 8, 20212021
The book is exported
Vincent causes TEXO's entire Copper CRM opportunity database — the working universe of every deal — to be exported to his own account.
Feb 16, 20215:23 p.m.
The ultimatum
One month after signing the TEXO agreement, Vincent demands Pourtemour's stake be cut from 50% to 15%, non-voting, no distributions — framed as non-negotiable.
"a take it or leave it deal, or I will walk away." [Ex. A4]
Feb 17, 2021< 24 hrs later
The CRM is seized
One day after Pourtemour refuses, Vincent tells Copper a "rogue" employee compromised the account, has the other users removed, and moves ownership to texojoe@gmail.com. Pourtemour is locked out. [Ex. D2]
Feb 22, 20212021
Bridgepointe cuts TEXO off
Bridgepointe "decides to enforce section 1.4" and will accept no new sales from a Texo email — while promising to honor "all existing business … up until today."
Mar 17, 20212021
Notice, in writing
Pourtemour's counsel writes that Vincent "continues to misappropriate those TEXO deals and leads to his other companies." The claim is contemporaneous — not reconstructed after the fact. [Ex. R]
Apr–May 20212021
"Orders to move to Xcel/Vinco"
An internal Bridgepointe chain documents the diversion in real time — QuickCentralHosting, SiTime, Mercedes-Benz, Netskope — and a CEO asking for legal cover in the same breath.
May 20212021
TEXO dissolved on paper
Vincent files a Certificate of Cancellation swearing the dissolution was "made by a vote of ALL of the members." Pourtemour — a 50% member — never consented and was never told.
Dec 21, 20212021
"No title or claim"
Bridgepointe files a verified interpleader telling the Court it is a neutral stakeholder with no interest in the commissions.
Feb 22, 202263 days later
The $16.4M sale
Through the IAPCA, Vincent and his entities sell a 51% interest in agency intangible assets — valued at $16,426,683.72 — to Bridgepointe-side entities and Charlesbank. One year to the day after cutting TEXO off.
May 20252025
Charlesbank is warned
Pourtemour writes to Charlesbank directly, serves a subpoena, and provides the related-action pleadings. By no later than now, actual notice.
June 20262026
The omission surfaces
Bridgepointe discloses $372,704.72 in additional TEXO-originated commissions — including Mercedes-Benz — that had never been interpleaded or transparently accounted for.
July 2, 2026Today's file
This complaint is filed
Penal Code § 496(c) civil theft, fraudulent concealment, conversion, and accounting — against every party that took, concealed, bought, or holds the property.
04 — The Property
Specific. Identifiable. Traceable.
Not unpaid labor — a defined book of business: accounts, registrations, CRM data, recurring commission streams, and the proceeds of their sale.
The February 8, 2021 Copper export is the central snapshot: the working universe of TEXO opportunities as of the moment before the diversion began. The same account names then recur at every stage of the chain — the CRM export, Bridgepointe's RPM records, the interpleader accounting, and the IAPCA acquired-asset schedules. An account that appears in all four places, the complaint argues, is not a coincidence. It is the same piece of property, tracked from the moment it was taken to the moment it was sold.
$16,426,683.72 · IAPCA base agency valuation
$1,263,591.05 · agency commissions referenced
$372,704.72 · later-disclosed omission
293 · in-flight TEXO deals
51% · interest conveyed
The accounts, by name — identified across the CRM export, Bridgepointe records, and representative declarations:
Mercedes-Benz R&DTeslaNetskopePala CasinoSiTimeQuickCentralHostingLewis & RaulersonArctic Glacier
The income is recurring — the customer pays the supplier, the supplier pays Bridgepointe, and Bridgepointe pays the agency, month after month, for as long as the contracts stay in force. The sums Bridgepointe chose to interplead, the complaint says, are a fraction of a single year on a subset of accounts. The asset that was actually taken is the recurring stream itself, across the whole book — an amount that can be fixed only by a forensic accounting of all 293 deals.
05 — In Their Words
The record, quoted.
Joseph Vincent May 4, 2021 · "Orders to move to Xcel/Vinco" [Ex. F]
"Bri's agent agreement was canceled by Texo… so she needs to route the deal through XCEL/VINCO in order to get paid."
Scott Evars, Bridgepointe CEO in the same email chain [Ex. F]
"Joe, can your attorney send me something covering us on future lawsuits? Meaning is it settled?"
Jade Look, Bridgepointe finance May 3, 2021 [Ex. F]
"I thought we were leaving the bookings as they are."
Scott Evars sworn — 63 days before appearing as buyer [Ex. Z]
"Bridgepointe has no interest in the outcome of this litigation."
Heather Every witness declaration [Ex. E2]
It "seemed like I was stealing Texo's client list and giving them to another company."
Joseph Vincent deposition [Ex. B, 100:2]
"Mistakes happen, Ryan." — then, asked if it was in fact a mistake, counsel instructed him not to answer.
Joseph Vincent the admission at the center of the case [Ex. B, 73:3-4]
"Ryan, we were 50/50 partners in the business."
06 — The Claims
All Defendants · 3× damages
Vincent · Bridgepointe · BPT3 · Charlesbank
All Defendants
All Defendants
Four causes of action.
01
Violation of Penal Code § 496(c) — Civil Theft
Receipt, concealment, sale, and withholding of stolen property. Carries treble damages, plus costs and attorney's fees.
02
Fraudulent Concealment
Suppression of the IAPCA, the false no-litigation warranty, and $372,704.72 in omitted commissions — from a party with superior, exclusive knowledge.
03
Conversion (in the alternative)
Wrongful dominion over the TEXO accounts, CRM data, commission streams, and their traceable proceeds, inconsistent with Pourtemour's ownership.
04
Accounting
The amounts are unliquidated and sit in defendants' records. Only an audit of all 293 deals can fix what is truly owed.
07 — Relief Sought
The prayer.
- Actual damages according to proof.
- Three times those damages under Penal Code § 496(c).
- Costs and attorney's fees to the extent recoverable.
- Restitution and disgorgement of the stolen property and its proceeds.
- A constructive trust over the traceable proceeds, commission streams, and equity.
- An accounting and judgment in the amount found due.
- Prejudgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
- Punitive damages where permitted — pleaded in the alternative.
And a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
08 — The Record
Grounded in documents.
Every allegation here traces to exhibits, sworn testimony, produced records, and contemporaneous communications cited in the complaint.
Ex. A2 / A3 — the 50/50 & 80/20 ownership splits
Ex. B — Vincent deposition admissions
Ex. C1 / C2 — the Copper CRM export
Ex. D2 — the CRM-seizure instruction
Ex. F — "Orders to move to Xcel/Vinco"
Ex. H — the $16.4M IAPCA
Ex. J / K — the $19K/mo agreement & HelloSign audit
Ex. P — the $372,704.72 disclosure
Ex. R — March 2021 written notice
Ex. W / Z / EE / FF — the interpleader & "no claim"
Ex. E1–E5 — five witness declarations
The case for a jury
He sold what was not his to sell.
And warranted that it was. The complaint asks the Court to trace the property from the moment it was taken to the moment it was sold — and to make the chain account for it.
Case pending · Answer not yet filed