Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beyersdorf

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/22/2024 GRANTING 1 Application and DIRECTING Respondent to SHOW CAUSE on 1/6/2025 at 1:30 pm in Courtroom 4 (DAD) before District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Opposition due by 12/23/2024. Reply due by 12/30/2024. It is further ORDERED that the 1/14/2025 Initial Scheduling Conference is VACATED. (Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:24-cv-02253-DAD-JDP

v.
JAMES L. BEYERSDORF,
Defendant/Respondent.

ORDER COMPELLING
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT
BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM PURSUANT
TO SECTION 21(e) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
(Doc. No. 1)

18
19

This matter is before the court on the Application of the Securities and Exchange

20

Commission (the “SEC”), filed on August 19, 2024, for an order compelling

21

defendant/respondent James L. Beyersdorf to show cause why a judgment should not be entered

22

against him pursuant to Section 21(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange

23

Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78u(e)(1), to enforce compliance with the Order Making Findings and

24

Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the

25

Exchange Act, Sections 203(e), 203(f), and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and

26

Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Administrative Order”), entered on

27

consent against respondent Beyersdorf on August 20, 2019 pursuant to an administrative

28

proceeding entitled In the Matter of Financial Sherpa, Inc., and James L. Beyersdorf. (Doc. Nos.
1

1

1, 1-2.) The Administrative Order required respondent Beyersdorf to pay disgorgement of

2

$232,166, prejudgment interest of $15,268, and a civil penalty of $189,427. (Doc. No. 1-3 at 6–

3

12). The court finds it appropriate for an order to show to cause to issue at this time. See S.E.C.

4

v. McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that the SEC had standing to seek district

5

court enforcement of an order affirming sanctions on a brokerage firm’s officers, but that the

6

officers were entitled to an opportunity to respond to the application seeking enforcement, and

7

that the district court should have “set a briefing schedule,” “issued an order to show cause,” or

8

“set a hearing on the matter”).

9

Accordingly,

10

1.

11
12

Plaintiff/Petitioner’s application for an order compelling respondent to show cause
why a judgment should not be entered against him (Doc. No. 1) is hereby granted;

2.

Defendant/Respondent shall appear before this court in Courtroom 4 of the

13

courthouse located at 501 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814 on January 6,

14

2025 at 1:30 p.m. and show cause at that time why a judgment should not be

15

entered against him pursuant to Section 21(e) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §

16

78u(e)(1);

17

3.

18
19

The SEC shall personally serve defendant/respondent with this order, and file a
proof of service evidencing the same, on or before December 9, 2024;

4.

Defendant/Respondent shall serve and file any opposing papers by December 23,

20

2024, and service shall be made by delivering the papers by that date to Jennifer A.

21

Youngs, Securities and Exchange Commission, at 100 F Street NE, Mail Stop

22

5631, Washington, D.C. 20549-5631 or via email to [e-mail];

23

5.

The SEC may serve and file reply papers by December 30, 2024, and service shall

24

be made by delivering the papers by that date to defendant/respondent at the

25

address he designates in his opposition papers or, if he designates an e-mail

26

address, via e-mail to that address;

27
28

6.

If defendant/respondent fails to file opposing papers and/or fails to appear at the
scheduled hearing, the court may find defendant/respondent in default and enter an
2

1

appropriate order against defendant/respondent at such time without further notice

2

being given; and

3

7.

The Initial Scheduling Conference set for January 14, 2025, and any other dates

4

and deadlines laid out in the court’s standing order (Doc. No. 3-1) are hereby

5

vacated, as such dates were set as a result of this case being inadvertently

6

categorized as a civil case instead of a miscellaneous case.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 22, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3