U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Garcia et al

Filing 65

ORDER re 62 MOTION for order to show cause And Memorandum of Law Why Defendant Garcia Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court For Violating The Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction filed by U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/14/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
U.S.
COMMODITY
TRADING COMMISSION,

FUTURES

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-237-FtM-38CM

DORIAN GARCIA, DG WEALTH
MANAGEMENT, MACROQUANTUM
CAPITAL
LLC
and
UKUSA
CURRENCY FUND LP,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Future Trading
Commission's (“CFTC”) Motion for Order to Show Cause (Doc. #62) filed on July 9, 2015.
Yesterday, the Court held a Preliminary Pretrial Conference with all parties in attendance.
At that Conference, Defendants’ counsel, Burt H. Stutchin, conceded that Defendant
Dorian Garcia (“Garcia”) was in contempt of the Court’s previous Orders and that the
Court should adopt Plaintiff’s proposed order on the instant Motion. As a result, the Court
adopts the parties’ jointly proposed order without modification.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this Court does not
endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that
a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

1. Garcia is in contempt of this Court’s Statutory Restraining Order (“SRO”) (Doc.
#11) entered on April 15, 2015, and the Preliminary Injunction (“PI”) entered on
May 29, 2015 (Doc. #49). Both Orders contain, among other things, an asset
freeze.
2. Specifically, Garcia has pledged assets by issuing checks drawn on bank
accounts controlled by Garcia, to at least two DG Wealth investors totaling at
least $470,000 while the asset freeze was in place, and fraudulently telling
those same two investors that Defendants Garcia and Macroquantum Capital
LLC (“Macroquantum”) currently have funds to repay them but are unable to do
so only because of the “government” (the Court’s asset freeze included in the
SRO and PI). In fact, the total amount of funds in bank accounts and financial
institutions for DG Wealth and Macroquantum at the time of the asset freeze
was less than $500 and the total frozen funds for all of Defendants’ accounts
is currently $462.92.
3. Each of the Defendants is hereby:
(a) Ordered to notify all customers, clients, or investors of any of the
Defendants (as defined in the Court’s PI Order, including, but not limited to
any d/b/a, successor, affiliate, subsidiary, or other entity owned, controlled,
managed, or held by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of Dorian Garcia, DG
Wealth Management, Macroquantum Capital LLC or UKUSA Currency
Fund LP) to whom a contract, check, or other instrument has been issued
on or after April 15, 2015, that these contracts, checks, or other instruments
are null and void and any contract or pledge of assets to them by contract,

2

check, or any other instrument is rescinded, with copies of such notice
served upon Plaintiff’s counsel;
(b) Defendant Garcia agrees to appear for deposition at a location, time, and
date as agreed to by the parties; and
(c) Each of the Defendants (as that term is defined in the Court’s PI Order) are
prohibited from making misrepresentations about the nature of the
allegations or the Court’s findings in this lawsuit or communicating anything
related to the payment of refunds or the likelihood of, or mechanism for, the
repayment of funds to customers, clients, or investors of any of the
Defendants (as defined in the Court’s PI Order), including directly or
indirectly through other persons or entities.
4. Garcia may purge himself of the contempt by fulfilling all of the requirements of
this Order and complying with all actions required in paragraph 3(a) within 30
days from the date of this Order.
5. In the event the Court determines that Garcia has failed to comply with this
Order, a hearing will be held to consider whether more coercive measures are
necessary to ensure compliance.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, this 14th day of July, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3