United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Highlands Capital Management L.P. et al

Filing 29

ORDER Continuing Show-Cause Hearing until December 3, 2010. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 8/31/2010. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2010)

Download PDF
United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Highlands Capital Management L.P. et al Doc. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, vs. HIGHLANDS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., a California limited partnership; and GLENN KANE JACKSON, an individual, Defendants. ) Case No. 10-2654 SC ) ) ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ) UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 2010 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On June 17, 2010, the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC" or "Plaintiff") filed a Complaint against Highlands Capital Management, L.P., and Glenn Kane Jackson ("Mr. Jackson") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). On the same day, the Court granted Plaintiff's request for a Statutory Restraining Order, restraining Defendants from withdrawing, transferring, dissipating or disposing of their assets; directing financial institutions to prohibit Defendants from doing so; and requiring Defendants to maintain all business records. 2010 Order"). The Court also issued an order to show cause why the further relief requested in Plaintiff's Ex Parte Emergency Motion should not be granted. Among other requests for further relief, Plaintiff ECF No. 8 ("June 17, Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California seeks expedited discovery, including the ability to depose Defendants and non-parties, an accounting of all Defendants' assets, Plaintiff wants Defendants to sign a Consent to Release of Financial Records, and Plaintiff wants to be able to inspect and copy Defendants' books, records, and other documents. ("Proposed Order of Preliminary Injunction"). It is the Court's understanding that Mr. Jackson remains in custody in Marin County, that he is not represented by an attorney in this case, and that there are criminal proceedings pending against him. Under these circumstances, the Court continues the See ECF 23 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 show-cause hearing so that Mr. Jackson has an opportunity to obtain counsel to represent him at the hearing. The show-cause hearing is continued until Friday, December 3, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1, on the 17th floor, U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The relief granted in the Court's June 17, 2010 Order remains in effect until the December 3, 2010 show-cause hearing. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to notify the Marin County Sheriff's Department that Mr. Jackson should NOT be transported from the Marin County Jail to the Federal Courthouse on September 3, 2010. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to serve this Order on Defendants and on the Marin County Sheriff's Department, and file a proof of service with the Court within five (5) days of this Order. If Mr. Jackson is still in custody three months from now, Plaintiff should petition the Court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum at least fourteen (14) days prior to December 3, 2010, to ensure Mr. Jackson's presence at the show-cause hearing. If Mr. Jackson is no longer in custody three months from now, Mr. Jackson and his attorney are hereby ORDERED to appear at the showcause hearing on December 3, 2010. United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 31, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?