Securities and Exchange Commission v. Nadel et al
NOTICE to the Courts to take judicial notice regarding actual docketed court filings characterized in the Receiver's Response in Opposition to Wells Fargo's Motion for Leave to Reply by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: # 1 Composite Exhibit A)(Wirth, Steven)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
SCOOP CAPITAL, LLC,
SCOOP MANAGEMENT, INC.,
CASE NO.: 8:09-0087-T-26TBM
SCOOP REAL ESTATE, L.P.,
VALHALLA INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P.,
VALHALLA MANAGEMENT, INC.,
VICTORY IRA FUND, LTD.,
VICTORY FUND, LTD.,
VIKING IRA FUND, LLC.,
VIKING FUND, LLC., and
VIKING MANAGEMENT, LLC.
WELLS FARGO BANK'S REQUEST THAT THIS COURT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
OF ACTUAL DOCKETED COURT FILINGS CHARACTERIZED IN THE
RECEIVER'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO WELLS FARGO'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO REPLY
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("Wells Fargo")
respectfully requests the Court take judicial notice of the following pleadings/matters from the
dockets of the noted cases.
In the Receiver and Wiand Guerra King ("WGK") Response in Opposition to Wells
Fargo's Motion for Leave to Reply in Support of its Motion to Disqualify (Doc 795) (the
"Response"), the Receiver characterizes the actions taken by Michael Goldberg, a partner at
Akerman Senterfitt, in an SEC receivership case. Undersigned counsel contacted counsel for the
Receiver and WGK requested that the Receiver and WGK correct this characterization to the
Court, and provided counsel for the Receiver and WGK with a pleadings from the record so they
could correct their Response. The Receiver and WGK have filed an Amended Response (Doc.
797), but the Amended Response fails to adequately correct their mischaracterizations of the
record, and fails to inform the Court as to any of the reasons why they are filing an Amended
Response. Accordingly, Wells Fargo requests the Court take judicial notice of the following:
The Receiver's Response initially claimed that Akerman lawyer Michael
Goldberg acted as Receiver in the case of SEC v. M. Lauer et al, No. 03-80612-cv-Marra (S.D.
Fla.). (See Response, Doc. 795, footnote 2). Wells Fargo requests the Court to take judicial
notice of the actual docket in that case to confirm that no Akerman lawyer was receiver in that
Mr. Goldberg was receiver in the case of SEC v. Latin Am. Servcs Co., No. 99-
2360-cv (S.D. Fla.). His actions were mis-described in the Opposition and Amended Opposition.
Wells Fargo Bank requested that copies of the actual motion and order referenced be included.
The Receiver refused. Wells Fargo Bank respectfully asks the Court to take judicial notice of the
attached actual docketed court filings from SEC v. Latin Am. Servcs Co., No. 99-2360-cv (S.D.
Fla.), (Doc. Nos. 118, 120, 153, 155, 285, 289) (attached hereto as composite Exhibit "A") which
accurately depict the proceedings leading to the appointment of an ancillary receiver in that case.
Dated this 15th day of March, 2012 in Tampa, Florida.
/s/ Steven R. Wirth
L. Joseph Shaheen, Jr.
Florida Bar No.: 212385
Steven R. Wirth
Florida Bar No.: 170380
401 East Jackson Street, Suite 1700
Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-7333
Facsimile: (813) 223-2837
Counsel for Wells Fargo, N.A.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 15, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which provided notice to all CM/ECF participants in
I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing
by first-class mail to the following on March 16, 2012:
Arthur G. Nadel
FCI BUTNER LOW
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 999
Butner, NC 27509
de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A.
Richard A. Gilbert
Patrick A. McNamara
Eric D. Nowak
Post Office Box 2350
Tampa, Florida 33601-2350
/s/ Steven R. Wirth
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?