Securities and Exchange Commission v. Giguiere et al

Filing 250

Order Dismissing Case. Signed by District Judge William Q. Hayes on 01/08/2025.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(stn)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
GANNON GIGUIERE; OLIVERBARRET LINDSAY; ANDREW
HACKETT, KEVIN GILLESPIE;
and ANNETTA BUDHU,
Defendants.

16
17

Case No.: 18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

HAYES, Judge:

18

The matters before the Court are the crossclaims asserted by Defendant Andrew

19

Hackett (“Hackett”) against Defendants Kevin Gillespie and Annetta Budhu (ECF No.

20

144) and the “Defendant’s Showing of Cause for Failure to Prosecute and Motion for Entry

21

of Default Judgment Against Defendants Gillespie and Budhu” (the “Motion Showing

22

Cause and Requesting Default Judgment”) (ECF No. 248) filed by Hackett.

23

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

24

On July 6, 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a

25

Complaint against Defendants Gannon Giguiere, Oliver-Barret Lindsay, Andrew Hackett,

26
27
28

1
18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

1

Kevin Gillespie (“Gillespie”), and Annetta Budhu (“Budhu”) (collectively, “Defendants”)

2

alleging federal securities laws violations. (ECF No. 1.) 1

3

As relevant here, on July 12, 2022, the Court issued final judgment, pursuant to

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (“Rule 54(b)”), in favor of the Securities and

5

Exchange Commission and against Gillespie. (ECF No. 89.) On January 30, 2023, the

6

Court issued final judgment, pursuant to Rule 54(b), in favor of the Securities and

7

Exchange Commission and against Budhu. (ECF No. 126.)

8

On April 7, 2023, the SEC filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”).

9

(ECF No. 136.) On June 15, 2023, Hackett filed an Answer to the SAC and asserted

10

crossclaims against Budhu and Gillespie. (ECF No. 144.)

11
12

On July 25, 2024, the SEC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendant
Andrew Hackett (the “Motion for Summary Judgment”). (ECF No. 229.)

13

On November 18, 2024, the Court issued an Order granting the SEC’s Motion for

14

Summary Judgment as to Hackett and ordering Hackett to show cause as to “why his

15

crossclaims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and because there no longer

16

appears to be a case or controversy with respect to the cross claims.” (See ECF No. 244 at

17

15–16.)

18
19

On December 9, 2024, Hackett filed the Motion Showing Cause and Requesting
Default Judgment. (ECF No. 248.)
II.

20

DISCUSSION

21

A crossclaim is a claim asserted by one party against a coparty in the same litigation.

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g) governs the assertion of crossclaims, such as

23

Hackett’s crossclaims against Gillespie and Budhu. It states:

24

[a] pleading may state as a crossclaim any claim by one party against a coparty
if the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter
of the original action or of a counterclaim, or if the claim relates to any

25
26
27
28

1

Final judgments have been issued against all defendants except Hackett.
2

18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

property that is the subject matter of the original action. The crossclaim may
include a claim that the coparty is or may be liable to the crossclaimant for all
or part of a claim asserted in the action against the crossclaimant.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g). “By its terms, Rule 13(g) requires the cross-claimant to be a party to
the lawsuit at the time the cross-claim is asserted.” Ambraco, Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570
F.3d 233, 242 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that a cross-claimant could not bring claims under
Rule 13(g) against a co-defendant who “had already been dismissed from the suit”). In this
case, the Court issued final judgments against both Gillespie and Budhu before Hackett
asserted his crossclaims against them. Gillespie’s final judgment was entered on July 12,
2022 (see ECF No. 89), and Budhu’s final judgment was entered on January 30, 2023 (see
ECF No. 126). Hackett did not assert his crossclaims until June 15, 2023. (See ECF No.
144.) Therefore, the Court finds that “a cross-claim under Rule 13(g) was no longer an
available mechanism for asserting” Hackett’s claims against either Gillespie or Budhu.
Ambraco, Inc., 570 F.3d at 242.

15

III.

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hackett’s crossclaims against Gillespie and Budhu are

17

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court dismisses Hackett’s crossclaims against Gillespie and

18

Budhu. This ruling is without prejudice to Hackett’s right to file a new action against

19

Gillespie and Budhu.

20
21

CONCLUSION

Dated: January 8, 2025

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
18-cv-1530-WQH-JLB