Securities and Exchange Commission v. Schooler et al
Filing
1088
REDACTED ORDER: (1) Adopting Receiver's Recommendation Regarding Jamul Valley Property; (2) Sealing Receiver's Recommendation Regarding Jamul Valley Property (Doc. 1020 ). The Clerk of Court is directed to seal the document currently filed at ECF No. 1020 . Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 6/17/2015. (srm)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
15
16
17
18
19
LOUIS V. SCHOOLER and FIRST
FINANCIAL PLANNING
CORPORATION, dba Western
Financial Planning Corporation,
CASE NO. 3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA
ORDER:
(1) ADOPTING RECEIVER’S
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING JAMUL VALLEY
PROPERTY;
(2) SEALING RECEIVER’S
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING JAMUL VALLEY
PROPERTY
[ECF No. 1020]
[REDACTED]
Defendants.
20
21
Before the Court is Receiver Thomas C. Hebrank’s (the “Receiver”) Update as
22 to Status of Balloting Regarding Letter of Intent for Jamul Valley Property and
23 Recommendation for Further Action. (ECF No. 1020.) Previously, the Receiver had
24 received a letter of intent regarding the Jamul Valley property, owned by the Jamul
25 Meadows, Lyons Valley, and Hidden Hills GPs, and the Court ordered the Receiver to
26 ballot the investors in those GPs. (ECF No. 992.) All three GPs obtained a quorum of
27 eligible voters (i.e. investors who have not defaulted on their notes owed to the GP or
28 their operational bills) for either selling or retaining the property. (ECF No. 1020, at
-1-
3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA
1 1.) A majority of eligible voting interests in Lyons Valley voted to retain the property.
2 (ECF No. 1020, Ex. A.) Neither Jamul Meadows nor Hidden Hills had a majority either
3 to sell the property or to retain it. (Id.) However, Hidden Hills had more voting interests
4 in favor of selling and Jamul Meadows had more voting interests in favor of retaining.
5 (Id.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The Court further notes that this information regarding the status of the Jamul
9 Valley property GPs warrants sealing. Generally, “compelling reasons” must exist to
10 seal documents filed in support of a dispositive motion. See Kamakana v. City and
11 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a court filing
12 contains “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” the
13 court may properly deny public access. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598
14 (1978). This information could hinder the Receiver’s ability to negotiate and sell the
15 property for the GPs and thus the Court concludes that compelling reasons exist to seal
16 this order as well as the Receiver’s recommendation, (ECF No. 1020). Accordingly, the
17 Clerk of Court is directed to seal the document currently filed at ECF No. 1020.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19 DATED: June 17, 2015
20
21
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
3:12-cv-2164-GPC-JMA
]]>
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?
