Securities and Exchange Commission v. BIC Real Estate Development Corporation et al

Filing 142

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION TO INTERVENE (Doc. 91) signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on December 21, 2016. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 9 10 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE MOTION TO INTERVENE (Doc. 91) Plaintiff, 7 8 1:16-cv-344-LJO-JLT v. BIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., et al., Defendants. 11 12 Valley Mortgage Investments, Inc. (“VMI”) moves to intervene in this Securities and Exchange 13 Commission (“SEC”) enforcement action. Doc. 91. The SEC, the Court-appointed Receiver, and 14 Defendants opposed. Docs. 96-98. After the matter was fully briefed, the Court ordered supplemental 15 briefing because the Court found it was unable to rule on the then-current record. See Doc. 110 at 3. The 16 Court therefore requested further information and argument from the parties on whether VMI should be 17 permitted to intervene. See id. The Court also indicated to the parties that it would consider a stipulation 18 by the parties that would obviate the need for the Court to rule on VMI’s motion. See id. at 3-4. 19 Both parties timely submitted supplemental briefs. See Docs. 124, 139. The parties indicate that 20 they have met and conferred and appear to have resolved the bulk of their disputes, which should 21 obviate the need for the Court to rule on VMI’s motion to intervene. See Doc. 124 at 7-8; Doc. 139 at 1. 22 It appears the only outstanding issue on which the parties cannot come to an agreement is whether VMI 23 is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs associated with its motion to intervene. See id.; Doc. 139 at 4. 24 In its supplemental brief, VMI states that “the Receiver is open to a stipulation that includes 25 some mechanism for VMI to include attorney’s fees in its beneficiary demands,” but “the SEC has 1 1 expressed concern about any stipulated structure that reimburses VMI’s fees without advance Court 2 approval of the concept.” Doc. 139 at 2. VMI indicates that if the Court were to approve the parties’ 3 proposed stipulation, then they would “be able to finalize a stipulation that resolves the need for VMI to 4 intervene.” Id. at 2. VMI therefore “now hopes to obtain the Court’s thoughts on the inclusion of 5 attorney’s fees in beneficiary demands to the parties can finalize their stipulation and resolve the issues 6 presented by VMI’s motion.” Id. at 3. 7 The Court cannot issue advisory opinions. See generally Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) 8 (“[I]t is quite clear that the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the 9 federal courts will not give advisory opinions.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). VMI’s request 10 is therefore DENIED. 11 The parties shall inform the Court on or before January 13, 2017, whether they request a ruling 12 on VMI’s motion to intervene or whether they have reached an agreement to resolve the matter 13 informally. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ December 21, 2016 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?