CJ-2026-1174 - Sort & Stack LLC v. Matthew Hartzog

What's This Case About?

Let’s cut straight to the drama: a man helped form a business, then allegedly walked into a bank and just took $64,000 from the company account—cold, no permission, no warning, no remorse—and used it all for himself. Not to pay company bills. Not to save the business. Nope. For himself. Like the LLC was his personal ATM with a side of betrayal. And now, the company—yes, a company suing a guy who owns part of it—is dragging him into Oklahoma County District Court like, “Hey, remember us? The thing you stole from?”

So who are these people? On one side, we’ve got Sort & Stack LLC, a perfectly normal-sounding Oklahoma-based business that, based on the name, might organize closets, declutter homes, or help people finally sort their junk drawer situation. We don’t know exactly what they do, but we do know they were trying to run a legit operation with proper bank accounts, payroll, and rent obligations. On the other side: Matthew Hartzog, a 20% owner of the company, which means he wasn’t just some random employee—he had skin in the game. But—and this is important—he wasn’t in charge. He wasn’t a manager. He wasn’t even currently employed by the company. Yet, because he used to work there, he still had access. He was an authorized signatory on the bank account. Which, in business terms, is like giving someone a skeleton key to your financial house. And Matthew? He didn’t just peek inside. He moved in.

Here’s how it all went down, according to the filing: on February 2, 2026—a date that will now live in petty corporate infamy—Matthew allegedly strolled into a Bank of Oklahoma branch and withdrew $64,000 from Sort & Stack’s account. Let’s pause for a second. That’s not spare change. That’s a down payment on a house. That’s a luxury car. That’s a lot of therapy. And he didn’t use it for the business. Nope. The petition says he took it “for his own improper personal use,” which is lawyer-speak for “he blew it on himself like it was his birthday, tax refund, and divorce settlement all at once.” And get this—he didn’t tell anyone. Not the manager, William Harper. Not the other members. Not even a quick “Hey, I’m gonna grab sixty-four grand, kthxbye.” He just… took it. Like a corporate kleptomaniac with a banking habit.

Now, you might think, “Wait, he owns 20%—doesn’t he get a cut of the profits?” Sure, if there are profits, if the LLC decides to distribute them, and if it follows the rules. But that’s not what happened here. This wasn’t a dividend. This wasn’t a paycheck. This was a straight-up, unapproved, unauthorized cash grab. And because of it, Sort & Stack got hit hard. They couldn’t meet financial commitments. They had to scramble to cover payroll and rent. The filing says they were forced to beg customers for early payments—and accept less money than they were owed—just to keep the lights on. That’s not just bad business. That’s a financial ambush.

So why are they in court? Well, the company didn’t just file one claim. They came loaded. Five separate legal theories, like a legal buffet of betrayal. First up: Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Fancy term, simple idea: when you’re part of a company, especially as a member, you have a duty to act in the company’s best interest. You’re not supposed to screw it over. By taking the money for himself, Matthew allegedly violated that duty of loyalty—like a co-pilot deciding to steal the plane mid-flight and fly it to Belize.

Next: Conversion. This one’s about property. The $64,000 wasn’t Matthew’s. It belonged to the LLC. He didn’t have the right to take it. By withdrawing it, he “exercised wrongful control” over someone else’s money—which, in plain English, is called stealing. Then there’s Wrongful Distribution, which is basically the legal version of “you can’t just pay yourself.” Oklahoma law says distributions have to follow the rules. No self-service cashouts. And this one? Totally unauthorized.

They also claim Breach of the Operating Agreement—the rulebook for how the LLC runs. Matthew allegedly violated at least 15 different sections of it (the petition lists paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 17… and so on, like a legal grocery list of wrongdoing). And finally, Unjust Enrichment: he got richer, the company got poorer, and it wasn’t fair. He shouldn’t get to keep the money just because he took it.

So what do they want? $64,000 back, obviously. But also: interest (because time is money), punitive damages (because they want to punish him, not just get paid back), attorney’s fees (because this mess wasn’t cheap to clean up), and even a constructive trust—which sounds like a dating app for lawyers but is actually a court order saying, “Hey, if you spent the money on a car or a house, that thing now belongs to the company.” Oh, and they want a jury trial. So this isn’t just about money. It’s about accountability. They want twelve Oklahoma citizens to look Matthew in the eye and say, “No, dude. Not cool.”

Now, is $64,000 a lot? In the grand scheme of lawsuits, it’s not massive. But for a small business? That’s catastrophic. That’s payroll for months. That’s rent, insurance, supplies. That’s the difference between staying open and closing down. And the fact that they had to beg customers for early payments—at a discount—shows how deep the damage went. This wasn’t just theft. It was sabotage.

Our take? Look, business partnerships are messy. People fall out. Money gets tight. But walking into a bank and just taking tens of thousands of dollars like you’re the CEO of Nope isn’t a disagreement. It’s a betrayal. The most absurd part? That he still had access. How does a former employee, non-manager, 20% owner still have signing authority? That’s like letting your ex keep the house keys “just in case.” And the fact that he did it right before payroll? Cold. Ice cold.

But here’s what we’re rooting for: not just the money back. We’re rooting for the shame. We want the jury to see the receipts. We want to know what he bought with that $64,000. A boat? A Rolex? A lifetime supply of protein powder? Whatever it was, it better have been worth losing your reputation, your relationships, and possibly your freedom over. Because in the court of public opinion—and yes, we’re that court—stealing from your own company isn’t just illegal. It’s unforgivable. And if this case teaches us anything, it’s this: never, ever give someone the keys to your bank account unless you’re ready for them to drive off with the whole damn car.

Case Overview

$64,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

Oklahoma County District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ronald T. Shinn Jr.

HB Law Partners, PLLC

Relief Sought

$64,000 Monetary

$1 Punitive

Plaintiffs

Sort & Stack LLC business
Rep: Ronald T. Shinn Jr.

Defendants

Matthew Hartzog individual

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Breach of Fiduciary Duty	Defendant withdrew $64,000 from company's bank account for personal use without authorization
2	Conversion	Defendant wrongfully exercised control over company funds
3	Wrongful Distribution in Violation of Oklahoma Limited Liability Company Act	Defendant provided himself a wrongful distribution of $64,000
4	Breach of the Operating Agreement	Defendant breached various provisions of company's Operating Agreement
5	Unjust Enrichment	Defendant received a benefit or enrichment at company's expense

Petition Text

1,182 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA SORT & STACK LLC, an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW HARTZOG, an individual, Defendant. FILED DISTRICT COURT OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA February 13, 2026 10:50 AM RICK WARREN, COURT CLERK Case Number CJ-2026-1174 Case No. ____________ PETITION Plaintiff, Sort & Stack LLC, for its Petition against Defendant Matthew Hartzog, alleges and states as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Sort & Stack LLC ("Plaintiff") is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Oklahoma with a principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant Matthew Hartzog ("Defendant") is a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, as all the parties are residents of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, and all communications and transactions at issue in this matter arose and occurred in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. Plaintiff is an Oklahoma limited liability company engaged in business in Oklahoma. 5. Defendant owns a twenty percent (20%) membership interest in Plaintiff. 6. Defendant is not a manager or current employee of Plaintiff. 7. Because he was at one time an employee of Plaintiff, Defendant is an authorized signatory on Defendant’s bank account with Bank of Oklahoma. 8. On February 2, 2026, Defendant went to a Bank of Oklahoma location and wrongfully withdrew $64,000 from Plaintiff’s bank account. 9. Defendant withdrew the $64,000 for his own improper personal use, not for any legitimate company purpose. 10. Defendant’s withdrawal of the $64,000 was not authorized by Plaintiff, or its manager, William Harper. 11. Defendant provided no notice to Plaintiff or its Manager, William Harper, that he intended to withdraw $64,000 from Plaintiff’s bank account at Bank of Oklahoma on February 2, 2026. 12. Defendant's withdrawal of the $64,000 was wrongful and in violation of his duties to Plaintiff. 13. As a result of Defendant’s unauthorized withdrawal, Plaintiff was unable to fulfill certain financial commitments and had to take immediate action to replenish its bank account by taking actions that it otherwise would not have taken. 14. For example, Plaintiff contacted certain customers and offered to accept expedited payment on different terms than Plaintiff otherwise would have received (i.e., less money), simply so that Plaintiff had adequate funds to satisfy financial obligations such as payroll and rent. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 15. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 14 as if fully set forth herein. 16. A fiduciary relationship existed between Defendant and Plaintiff. 17. As a member of Plaintiff, Defendant owed fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to Plaintiff pursuant to the Operating Agreement. 18. On February 2, 2026, Defendant breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty by withdrawing $64,000 from the company's bank account for his personal use without authorization from the LLC or its manager. 19. Defendant’s withdrawal of company funds for personal use was directly contrary to Plaintiff’s interests and constituted a misappropriation of company assets. 20. Defendant's breach of fiduciary duty was the direct cause of damages to Plaintiff. COUNT II - CONVERSION 21. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully set forth herein. 22. Plaintiff owned the $64,000 in its bank account and had the exclusive right to possession and control of those funds. 23. The funds in Plaintiff’s Bank of Oklahoma account were discrete company property held in Plaintiff’s bank account for company purposes, including upcoming payroll and rent obligations. 24. Defendant wrongfully interfered with Plaintiff’s property right. 25. On February 2, 2026, Defendant wrongfully exercised dominion and control over the $64,000 by withdrawing it from Plaintiff’s bank account without Plaintiff’s authorization. 26. Defendant’s withdrawal of the funds was wrongful because he was not authorized to withdraw company funds for personal use, and Defendant’s exercise of control over the funds was in denial of and inconsistent with Plaintiff’s ownership rights. 27. Defendant converted these discrete and insular funds to his own personal use. 28. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s conversion. COUNT III - WRONGFUL DISTRIBUTION IN VIOLATION OF OKLAHOMA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT—RECOVERY ACTION UNDER 18 OKLA. STAT. § 2031 29. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 28 as if fully set forth herein. 30. On February 2, 2026, Defendant provided himself a wrongful distribution of $64,000 when he withdrew that amount from Plaintiff’s bank account. 31. Defendant’s wrongful distribution was both a violation of Plaintiff’s Operating Agreement and 18 Okla. Stat. § 2030. 32. Defendant’s $64,000 withdrawal was not authorized by Plaintiff’s operating agreement or its manager. 33. Defendant is personally liable to Plaintiff for the amount of the wrongful distribution. COUNT IV - BREACH OF THE OPERATING AGREEMENT 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 33 as if fully set forth herein. 35. A valid operating agreement dated December 31, 2020, exists for Plaintiff that governs the rights, duties, and obligations of its members and provides certain rights, duties, and responsibilities to Plaintiff’s manager, William Harper. 36. Defendant, as a member of the LLC, is a party to and bound by Plaintiff’s operating agreement. 37. Defendant’s wrongful withdrawal of Plaintiff’s funds for Defendant’s own personal benefit is a breach of various provisions of Plaintiff’s Operating Agreement, including but not limited to Paragraphs 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 21, 53, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, and 73. 38. Defendant's breach of the operating agreement caused damages to Plaintiff. COUNT V - UNJUST ENRICHMENT 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as if fully set forth herein. 40. By wrongfully withdrawing Plaintiff’s funds of $64,000 on February 2, 2026, for his own personal use, Defendant received a benefit or enrichment. 41. The enrichment was at Plaintiff’s expense. 42. Plaintiff was deprived of the use and benefit of the $64,000 and had to take immediate actions to rectify and mitigate additional harm that could have occurred from Defendant’s conduct. 43. Defendant’s retention of the funds would unjustly enrich him at the expense of Plaintiff and its other members. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff Sort & Stack LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Defendant Matthew Hartzog as follows: 44. Compensatory damages against Defendant in the amount of $64,000. 45. Prejudgment interest on the amount of $64,000 from February 2, 2026, to the date of judgment, at the rate provided by Postjudgment Interest on Judgments Rendered After January 1, 2005—Prejudgment Interest on Actions Filed After January 1, 2010. 46. Post-judgment interest at the rate provided by law. 47. Punitive damages against Defendant in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant for his willful and wrongful conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future. 48. Imposition of a constructive trust and/or equitable lien on the $64,000 wrongfully taken by Defendant, or on any identifiable assets purchased or held with such funds, requiring Defendant to hold such property in trust for the benefit of Plaintiff. 49. An order requiring Defendant to make restitution to Plaintiff in the amount of $64,000. 50. Recovery against Defendant pursuant to Wrongful Distribution—Liability—Recovery Action for the amount of the wrongful distribution. 51. Reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiff in prosecuting this action. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ronald T. Shinn, Jr. Ronald T. Shinn Jr., OBA #19569 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HB Law Partners, PLLC 4217 28th Ave. NW, Suite 101 Norman, OK 73069 (405) 561-2410 (405) 563-9085 (fax) [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff