Patriot Gold Group, the Seal Beach, California precious metals dealer legally organized as Halt Gold Group, LLC, is a defendant in two notable lawsuits: a long-running dispute brought by two ousted co-founders over their 2017 removal from the company, and a false advertising case filed by a competitor over the firm’s claim to have been in business since 1986. Neither case involves a regulator or a group of customers, and Patriot Gold Group has not been the subject of any known state or federal consumer fraud action.
The Co-Founder Ouster Case: Blalock and Novak
Patriot Gold Group was founded in 2016 by six members, including Jacob Blalock and Benjamin Novak. In May 2017, roughly a year in, the two were separated from the company in what they later called an “ouster.” On August 2, 2017, the four remaining members — Charley Chartoff, Jack Hanney, Alexander Orbison (of Brothers Investment, LLC), and Mike Celano — voted to remove Blalock and Novak for “cause” and moved to reacquire their membership units.1Casemine. Blalock v. Halt Gold Group, LLC
Blalock and Novak filed their first lawsuit the day before, on August 1, 2017, in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC670702), naming Halt Gold Group, Celano, Chartoff, Hanney, and Orbison as defendants. In February 2024, Judge Robert B. Broadbelt III granted the defendants’ motion to bifurcate the trial: a first phase for liability and compensatory damages plus any finding of malice, oppression, or fraud, and a second phase on punitive damages only if the jury ruled for the plaintiffs. Evidence of the defendants’ finances was barred until after that first-phase verdict.2Rulings.law. Blalock v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. BC670702
The Appeal on Whether There Was “Cause”
A closely related case (No. 19STCV35566) focused on whether the removal itself was legitimate. Blalock and Novak alleged breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion, and sought declaratory judgment.1Casemine. Blalock v. Halt Gold Group, LLC The trial court granted summary judgment for Patriot Gold Group, but the California Court of Appeal reversed on December 15, 2023, finding a genuine factual dispute over whether “cause” existed.3UniCourt. Blalock et al. v. Halt Gold Group, LLC
Under the operating agreement, “cause” included felony conviction, fraud or embezzlement harming the company, willful failure to perform material duties, or a willful breach of the conflict-of-interest policy. Patriot alleged that on May 9, 2017, Blalock and Novak misappropriated sensitive documents, including customer lead sheets, and set up a competing firm, Orion Precious Metals. Blalock and Novak denied taking sensitive materials, and the appellate court noted the record lacked definitive evidence that specific documents were removed or that Orion was actively competing at the time of the removal vote.1Casemine. Blalock v. Halt Gold Group, LLC
The appellate court did side with Patriot on several points. The company was not required to let Blalock and Novak vote on each other’s removal, and it was not obligated to give advance notice before a for-cause removal. The conversion and declaratory judgment claims were affirmed in the defendants’ favor.3UniCourt. Blalock et al. v. Halt Gold Group, LLC The case was remanded for further proceedings on the central question of whether the removal was truly for cause.
The Orion False Advertising Case
After leaving Patriot, Blalock and Novak founded Orion Precious Metals, Inc. in September 2017. Orion later sued Patriot Gold Group in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. 21STCV30610), alleging false advertising, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic relations.4Rulings.law. Orion Precious Metals v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. 21STCV30610
The “Since 1986” Claim
The dispute centers on what the court called the “30-Year Claim.” Orion alleged Patriot marketed itself as having been in business since 1986, even though the company was founded in 2016. According to court filings, how long a precious metals dealer has been in business is one of the most important factors customers weigh when picking a firm.5UniCourt. Orion Precious Metals v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. 21STCV30610
Patriot said it stopped using the “since 1986” language in 2018. Evidence presented to the court showed the company’s website still described it as a “national silver dealer since 1986” as recently as 2023, and promotional videos featuring political commentator Dick Morris repeated the claim.4Rulings.law. Orion Precious Metals v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. 21STCV30610
Orion identified more than 60 customers who mentioned Patriot during their interactions with Orion, and produced evidence that at least ten prospective Orion customers were lost to Patriot after seeing the 30-Year Claim. Discovery showed Patriot earned at least $124,000 from transactions with those specific leads.5UniCourt. Orion Precious Metals v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. 21STCV30610
In a tentative ruling dated December 19, 2023, the court denied Patriot’s motion for summary judgment, keeping the false advertising and unfair competition claims alive. It granted summary adjudication on the intentional interference with contractual relations claim, finding Orion had not shown evidence of an actual contract that was interfered with. The court also denied Patriot’s attempt to strike Orion’s punitive damages request, noting that continued use of the disputed claim during litigation and inaccurate declarations in court filings could support a jury finding of malice.4Rulings.law. Orion Precious Metals v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. 21STCV30610 A jury trial was scheduled for June 10, 2024. No final trial outcome or settlement appears in the available records.5UniCourt. Orion Precious Metals v. Halt Gold Group, Case No. 21STCV30610
Don’t Confuse It With Patriot Gold and Silver Exchange
Searches for lawsuits involving Patriot Gold Group sometimes surface results for Patriot Gold and Silver Exchange, Inc., a separate company based in Palo Cedro, California and run by Norman Ray Ryan. This is not the same business, and no connection between the two has been established in any available records.
In January 2017, the California Department of Business Oversight (now the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) issued a Desist and Refrain Order against Patriot Gold and Silver Exchange and Ryan, finding violations of California’s Commodity Law for selling precious metals without proper registration and making untrue or misleading statements to customers.6DFPI. Patriot Gold and Silver Exchange, Inc. Enforcement Action Among the findings: one customer paid $20,000 for silver and never received it; another paid $7,040 for silver and received only $160 worth; a third wired $83,000 for gold that was not delivered within the required 28-day window.7DFPI. Desist and Refrain Order Against Patriot Gold and Silver Exchange Ryan was convicted of two felony counts of embezzlement on February 8, 2024, and ordered in February 2025 to pay $73,762 in restitution.8KRCR. Palo Cedro Businessman Ordered to Pay $73,762 in Embezzlement Case None of that involves Patriot Gold Group in Seal Beach.
What the Consumer Record Shows
Outside the co-founder and competitor cases, Patriot Gold Group has not been the target of any known consumer fraud action by federal or state regulators. The company holds an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau, a 4.9 out of 5 on Google based on 281 reviews, and a 5 out of 5 on Trustpilot based on 512 reviews as of mid-2024.9LendEDU. Patriot Gold Group Review
The most common consumer criticism is a lack of pricing transparency. The company does not list coin prices on its website, and some customers have reported difficulty getting certain information in writing or clear answers about its custodial partnerships.9LendEDU. Patriot Gold Group Review If you’re considering doing business with the firm, those are the areas where getting details up front — in writing — is worth insisting on.