Apex Trader Funding Lawsuit: Counterclaims, Contempt, and Sanctions

The Apex Trader Funding lawsuit is a federal copyright and software-license case, Riot v. Apex Trader Funding Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-01557), filed December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas by co-founder Leo Riot against the company and four individuals. It has since grown into a multi-front dispute involving counterclaims, repeated contempt motions, a subpoena battle with a YouTube journalist, and, as of January 20, 2026, a stay order from Judge Alan D. Albright that took the scheduled February 2026 trial off the calendar.¹²

Who Sued Whom and Why

The plaintiff of record is the Quasar Spendthrift Trust, filing on behalf of Leo Riot, identified in court filings as a co-founder of Apex Trader Funding. The defendants are Apex Trader Funding Inc. and four individuals: Darrell Roland Martin (the company’s founder, chairman, and owner), Anthony Todd Johnson, Bryan Wirth, and John Mark Skelton.¹³

The suit is docketed as a copyright infringement action under 17 U.S.C. § 501, but the underlying grievance is a claimed breach of a software license agreement. Riot alleges Apex made unauthorized use or modification of software and points to evidence including screenshots showing that tracking code had been removed from company websites. The plaintiff sought and obtained a temporary restraining order early in the case.¹

Apex’s Counterclaims and Added Parties

Apex did not confine itself to defense. On January 21, 2025, the company filed counterclaims against Riot and brought third-party claims against Daytraders.com and MKNET, LLC, then amended them on January 29, 2025. By mid-2025 Apex had filed a third amended set of counterclaims and third-party claims.¹⁴ The specific allegations in those counterclaims are not publicly available in extracted form.

The party list has expanded well past the original caption. Kelly Ann Marlin intervened, and Collecto, Inc., Day Traders, LLC, and Vert Spendthrift Trust appear on the docket. Defendant Anthony Todd Johnson and the GT Spendthrift Trust were dismissed in September 2025 under a stipulation of dismissal.²⁵

The Kelly Ann Marlin Subpoena Fight

Kelly Ann Marlin runs a YouTube channel called “Futures Trading with Kelly Ann” and maintains what she describes as a “Potential Scam Warning List” ranking prop trading companies. According to her court filings, Riot gave her a recorded Zoom video conference from January 6, 2024, in which John Mark Skelton, Apex’s chief operating officer, discussed measures and rule changes meant to “attack” user payouts and cause “psychological distress” to traders. Marlin published two videos about the recording without disclosing her source, believing it was a matter of public concern.⁶

Apex filed a motion for contempt against Riot and Marlin, alleging Marlin was acting as Riot’s agent or co-conspirator in disclosing confidential information. The company also served her with subpoenas demanding all communications with Riot, all recordings or data Riot had provided, and all communications with any Apex affiliate or source.⁶

On February 14, 2025, Marlin’s attorneys moved to quash the subpoenas. They argued the subpoenas violated reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment, imposed an undue burden on a non-party, were procedurally defective for demanding production beyond 100 miles without mandatory witness fees, and amounted to an abuse of process aimed at retaliating against her critical reporting.⁶

Contempt, Sanctions, and Spoliation Allegations

Contempt has been a running thread in the docket. Apex filed its first motion for contempt against Riot on January 15, 2025. Riot opposed it on January 29, 2025, and the parties jointly sought more time to resolve the issue.¹

In September 2025, Judge Albright ruled on motions for contempt and forensic examination, granting them in part and deferring in part. Apex then filed a third motion for contempt and sanctions, this time raising allegations of spoliation of evidence and perjury.⁵

Counsel Withdrawal and the Stayed Trial

The plaintiffs changed lawyers late in the case. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan moved to withdraw in September 2025, and the court granted the motion on September 17, 2025, after Apex withdrew its initial opposition. Attorney Joseph Smith took over and continued filing on the plaintiffs’ behalf, including an amended motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. That third amended complaint was filed on October 6, 2025, after the court granted leave.⁵

The case had been set for a final pretrial conference on February 6, 2026, with jury selection and trial to begin February 23, 2026. On January 20, 2026, Judge Albright stayed the entire case. The same day, the court denied Apex’s motion for reconsideration on leave to amend, finding “no manifest error of law or fact.” Apex had also filed a motion to strike the jury demand and to bifurcate the trial. The stay’s duration and conditions are not specified in available records.⁵²

As of the most recent docket activity on January 22, 2026, the case remains active but stayed, with more than 380 docket entries filed over roughly 13 months.²

Trader Complaints Behind the Litigation

The suit sits against a backdrop of longstanding criticism from users. Traders have accused Apex of using “Account Investigation” labels as a pretext to delay or deny payouts, requiring traders to record themselves on video as a condition of receiving earned money, and shutting down its public Discord server after critical coverage. According to trader-community reporting, the Skelton Zoom recording at the center of the Marlin dispute included discussion of finding ways to deny payouts to traders who “did nothing wrong.” In May 2025, the firm reportedly banned a large number of profitable traders, and roughly $800,000 in withheld funds reportedly required outside intervention to resolve.⁷

Apex, which describes itself as a futures proprietary trading evaluation service rather than a broker, is not registered with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the National Futures Association in the way traditional brokerages are.⁸ None of the trader-community allegations above are claims in Riot’s copyright complaint; they form the context in which the Skelton recording, and the fight over Marlin’s reporting on it, became consequential to the litigation.

1
CourtListener. Riot v. Apex Trader Funding Inc.
2
PACER Monitor. Riot et al v. Apex Trader Funding Inc. et al
3
Benzinga. Darrell Martin Speaker Profile
4
PACER Monitor. Defendant Apex Trader Funding Inc. Answer and Third Amended Counterclaims
5
CourtListener. Riot v. Apex Trader Funding Inc. – Docket Page 2
6
JMU1. Kelly Ann Marlin Motion to Quash Filing
7
imantrading.org. Apex Trader Funding Problems
8
Apex Trader Funding. How to Learn Day Trading Futures