Drew Morrison dba CityGuru of Seattle Path Investments Group, LLCPath Auction LendingPraesto Community Fund STOP before investing money with Drew Morrison and CityGuru of Seattle! Seattle Washington

What started as an attempt to evade responsibility for a debt, backfired on Defendant Drew Morrison, dba CityGuru, Seattle resulting in a Judgment against him for fraud, conversion, misrepresentation, criminal profiteering and violation of the Washington Consumer Act.     

In August, 2013 the Superior Court of King County, Seattle awarded a Summary Judgment 13-2-03663-1 SEA against Drew Morrison for breach of contract; defaulting on a promissory note for $489,181.

Drew Morrison filed a Motion to Vacate the Judgment arguing a technicality of insufficient process service.  The Court overturned the Judgment in March, 2014.  

Due to several conflicting facts that Drew Morrison introduced in his motion, investigations resulted examining closer many of his previous business transactions leading up to the default on his debt.  The resulting facts were such that the Court agreed to the Plaintiff's Motion to Amended Complaint against Drew Morrison including allegations of fraud, conversion, misrepresentation, criminal profiteering and violation of the Washington Consumer Act.   

In the proceeding discovery process and subpoenas, Drew Morrison defied Court orders on at least three occasions in which the Court found him in Contempt of Court.

Drew Morrison's definance to Court orders only resulted in continuing investigations--and more evidence supporting the Plaintiff's allegations.  

In its own Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in the case of 13-2-03663-1-SEA, the Court agreed to re-instate the Plaintiff's Judgment against Drew Morrison in August, 2015 to include damages in the amount of $971,442.

If you are a prospective investor or creditor to either Drew Morrison who was named as the Defendant, or any of his business ventures, it is important that you look closely at the smoke screen created by the Defendant in his rebuttal to this report as well as in the subject case.  This should be a part of your due diligence.  After all, one day you, too, could be contending with these same circumstances.   

The facts are simple and straight forward: 

1.)    The Defendant, clearly signed the Promissory Note in question.  His act of signing/execution of the Contract were evidenced by a Notary Public. 

2.)    He executed this contract twice: the first time when he signed/notarized the original note and again when the Plaintiff agreed to modify the terms of the Note in good faith to work with the Defendant after he failed to make his first payment due.

3.)    When the Defendant failed to pay the first payment due in accordance to the revised payment plan he had requested, and offered no intentions or plans of paying at all, the Plaintiff had no other alternative but to file Complaint for breach of contract. 

4.)    At the Defendant’s request for consideration, the Plaintiff agreed and signed the Defendant’s own Release Agreement, assuring the Defendant that upon signing the Promissory Note he would not be held accountable for questionable and potentially far more serious business practices leading up to the dispute.     

5.)    Knowing the Plaintiff was in legal process, the Defendant evaded due process of summons servicing, presuming with the intent of later challenging the inevitable Judgment on grounds of default.  The Judgment was awarded to the Plaintiff on August 23, 2013 as a Summary Judgment (not a default) on grounds that the Defendant had no substantial arguments (his only argument was that he was not given “consideration”—obviously ignoring the Release Agreement he demanded of the Plaintiff) nor did he bother to attend the hearing whereas he would have had the opportunity to represent his own interests (again, part of the evasion tactic). 

6.)    Six months after the Judgment award--and only after the Plaintiff continued collection efforts--did the Defendant challenge the Summary Judgment.  Had he approached the challenge on the original grounds of Breach of Contract, his Motion to Vacate the Summary Judgment would have certainly been denied.  Rather, the Defendant effectively challenged the Judgment with an elaborate concoction of accusations and allegations intended to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court, enough to vacate the Judgment for further deliberation.  

7.)    Since the Plaintiff did not have the opportunity of oral argument before the Court (basically no defense against the allegations), and the Defendant was not required to produce evidence or proof of his allegations, he was effective in his tactic to confuse and cloud the real issue at hand:  his debt to the Plaintiff.   Consequently, his motion to vacate the summary Judgment was granted. 

8.)    While the original Summary Judgment has been vacated, the Promissory Note remains in full power and effect.   It is imperative to remember the premier material fact of the case is:  The Defendant signed and notarized a Promissory Note—not once but twice—acknowledging and agreeing to the debt he owes the Plaintiff.  Any and all tactics are for the single purpose of evading that responsibility.  

The Defendant’s rebuttal to this Rip-Off Report, as well as that presented to the Court in his Motion to Vacate Summary Judgment, deserves close examination as it reveal much about the REAL motives/intentions of the Defendant. 

A.)    The Defendant clearly does not intend to honor or pay his debt—a debt that is so contractually documented that the Court originally awarded a Summary Judgment to the Plaintiff on its own merit.   

B.)     In his motion to vacate the judgment, the Defendant was never required to prove or provide evidence of his allegations against the Plaintiff, nor did the Plaintiff have the opportunity to answer and challenge these allegations.  The Defendant has demonstrated his willingness to manipulate the legal system in order to avoid his debt and promises.  

C.)     The Defendant was audacious enough to introduce allegations of “fraud”, “forgery” and “blackmail”.   While the Plaintiff certainly welcomes the opportunity to address these accusations with a public scrutiny of any “evidence”, the Plaintiff’s only fault in this matter was that of placing too much trust, confidence and money into the wrong person. 

D.)    In his rebuttal to this report, the Defendant admits the companies mentioned (Path Investments Group, LLC, Path Auction Lending, etc.) are no longer in business.  He argues that because his present company, CityGuru, Inc. of Seattle is in a different line of business from those companies that “they don’t even relate in the slightest”.  Yet, the Defendant was the founder of these failed companies, and he used them to acquire funds from the Plaintiff.….is he now suggesting that he owes nothing to the Plaintiff because they are no longer in business?     

E.)     In his rebuttal to this report, the Defendant also states that his current company, CityGuru, Inc. of Seattle “has zero involvement in this and never will.”  The money trail from his failed companies to CityGuru, Inc. indicates otherwise.  Continuing investigations and legal actions will be challenging the Defendant upon his statements here. 

F.)      A prudent investor doing his due diligence in regards to CityGuru, Inc of Seattle might be advised to read and consider another Rip-Off Report (No. 1140542, titled:  “CityGuru of Seattle, a.k.a. Drew Morrison, A Seattle CityGuru”).  Should you have already—or be contemplating—investing money with this company and/or its Founder and Officers, this report may offer you insights that could save or prevent loss of your investments.   

G.)    If the reader happens to have had similar experiences with the Defendant or the companies mentioned here, please report your own facts under “Also a Victim?” provided for by this website.  Knowledge is an Investor’s BEST friend.           

If you view the docket number, you'll see the judgment was overtuned.  As far as all the other accusations.  They are Gary "Buckley" Woolever's version of the truth.

The companies that were around during the time in question (4-5 years ago) aren't in business and one of them, Gary was a manager/member in.  Since that time, Drew has been working a field so different, they don't even relate in the slightest.  

CityGuru has zero involvement in this and never will. Gary and his friend (who he says posted this) have just thrown blanket darts to try to hurt others with zero appreciation for the wreckless abandon a post like this may cause. 

This site makes it all to easy for anyone to slander anyone else, through a simple process of a valid email and a mouse-click and does not take any time or care to corraborate any statements or accusations.  This advocates a personal agenda more then it does the reporting of information.