Securities And Exchange Commission v. Obioha et al

Filing 11

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Show Cause Response due by 7/3/2012.. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 19, 2012. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 12-80109 WHA

SECOND ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
MACK OBIOHA, OFF SECURITIES FUNDS,
LTD., and OFF HOLDINGS, LLC
Defendants.
/

An order to show cause issued on May 23, 2012, ordering defendants Mack Obioha, Off

18

Securities Funds, LTD, and Off Holdings, LLC, to show cause why plaintiff Securities and

19

Exchange Commission’s motion to compel should not be granted for failure to oppose and

20

ordering the Commission to file proof of service of the motion to compel on defendants. The

21

Commission filed a certificate of service showing that it mailed via UPS for next day delivery,

22

the motion to compel, accompanying declaration, order setting the hearing date, and clerk’s

23

notice rescheduling the hearing date on May 23, 2012, to Attorney James A. Trodden, who the

24

Commission claims is authorized to accept service on behalf of defendants. The Commission

25

then requested the order to show cause be vacated in light of the delay in serving defendants with

26

the motion. The order to show cause was vacated and a new briefing schedule was set. The

27

opposition brief was due June 14, 2012. None was filed.

28

Still, the docket does not reflect any appearance by defendants. However, the
Commission did file a certificate of service of the “order vacating order to show cause and

1

setting briefing schedule,” showing that order was served on Attorney Trodden, who the

2

Commission claims is authorized to receive service on behalf of defendants.

3

Defendants Mack Obioha, Off Securities Funds, LTD, and Off Holdings, LLC, are

4

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

why the motion to compel should not be granted for failure to

5

oppose. Defendants must file a written response by JULY 3, 2012. If no response is filed, the

6

motion may be granted. The Commission is ordered to serve this order on defendants and file a

7

proof of service.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: June 19, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2