Securities and Exchange Commission v. Inteligentry, LTD et al

Filing 96

ORDER Denying 69 Motion to Join or Merge (Joinder). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 8/1/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
***
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
INTELIGENTRY, LTD. PLASMERG, INC.,
)
PTP LICENSING, LTD. and JOHN P. ROHNER, )
)
Defendants.
)
)

2:13-cv-00344-GMN-NJK

ORDER

Before the Court is the Defendant John Rohner’s Motion to Join or Merge (#69).1 The

16
17

Court has considered Defendant Rohner’s Motion (#69) and the Plaintiff’s Response (#94). The

18

Court finds this motion appropriately resolved without oral argument. Local Rule 78-2.

19

On July 8, 2013, Defendant John Rohner filed a motion to Join or Merge the present case

20

with a Department of Justice Case, 2:13-mj-191-RAM. Docket No. 69. However, Section 21(g)

21

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §78u(g), prohibits such consolidation absent

22

consent by the SEC. The SEC has not consented in this case. Accordingly, Rohner’s request

23

must be denied.

24

...

25
26
27
28

1

To the extent that Rohner intended to file his motion on behalf of the corporation
defendants, the former Inteligenty employees, investors or former investors of any of the
corporations, it is denied. The corporation defendants are required to have licenced counsel. See
Rowland v. California Men’s, Unit II Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); see also Docket
No. 87 at 2-3 (Court explained Rohner cannot represent corporate defendants). Former Inteligenty
employees, investors or former investors of any of the corporations are not parties to this case and,
additionally, Rohner cannot appear pro se on behalf of other individuals.

1

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant John Rohner’s Motion to Join or Merge

4
5

(#69). The Court has considered Defendant Rohner’s Motion (#69) is DENIED.
DATED this 1st

day of August, 2013

6
7
8
9

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-