Securities and Exchange Commission v. Fujinaga et al

Filing 179

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the SECs motion for briefing schedule on remedies, 167 , is GRANTED insofar as it seeks a briefing schedule, but DENIED insofar as it asks the court to adopt the briefing schedule proposed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall brief the issue of remedies pursuant to the courts briefing schedule as detailed. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/1/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8
9
10

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Case No. 2:13-CV-1658 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

Plaintiff(s),
v.

11

EDWIN YOSHIHIRO FUNINAGA and MRI
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

12

Defendant(s).

13
14

Presently before the court is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (hereinafter

15

“SEC”) motion for briefing schedule on remedies.

16

defendants Edwin Yoshihiro Fujinaga, MRI International, CSA Service Center, LLC, and the

17

Factoring Company (collectively “defendants”) filed a response. (Doc. # 173). The SEC did not

18

file a reply, and the deadline to reply has now passed.

(Doc. # 167).

Defendants and relief

19

In its motion, the SEC proposes the following briefing schedule for the issue of remedies:

20

the SEC’s motion on the issue of remedies and for a final judgment will be due on December 8,

21

2014; defendants’ responses will be due on January 12, 2015; and the SEC’s replies will be due

22

on January 23, 2015. (Doc. # 167). The SEC states that it contacted counsel for defendants on

23

three dates to ascertain their position on the proposed briefing schedule, but that defendants’

24

counsel did not reply. (Doc. # 167).

25

In their response, defendants contend that additional time is warranted, asking for a

26

briefing schedule as follows: the SEC’s motion would be due on January 12, 2015; defendants’

27

responses due on February 13, 2015; and the SEC’s replies due on February 24, 2015. (Doc. #

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

173). Defendants argue that this briefing schedule is appropriate “[g]iven the substantial nature

2

of the financial data and allegations that will be presented.” (Doc. # 173).

3

Defendants state that “the SEC’s claimed damages will differ substantially from any

4

figures which will be transmitted by the [defendants], and, ultimately, it is believed that a hearing

5

and/or evidentiary hearing(s) will be required for the purpose of ascertaining damages, if any.”

6

(Doc. # 173). Defendants finally note that they anticipate acquiring new counsel in light of the

7

court’s order denying defendants’ request for additional attorney’s fees. (Doc. # 169).

8

Defendants’ arguments for additional time are not compelling. Defendants have access

9

to their own financial records. There is no reason to delay briefing to give defendants time to

10

access or sort through financial data. The court’s briefing schedule will provide defendants with

11

sufficient time to respond.

12

Defendants’ argument that briefing should be delayed to allow for hearings does not alter

13

this result. If necessary, the court can hold a hearing after the remedies issue has been fully

14

briefed. Defendants’ argument regarding the need for alternative counsel also does not warrant

15

delay.

16

Having considered the instant filings, the court will adopt the following briefing

17

schedule: the SEC’s motion on remedies will be due on December 8, 2014; defendants’

18

responses will be due on December 22, 2014; and the SEC’s replies will be due on December 29,

19

2014. This schedule comports with Local Rule 7-2, which provides that a response shall be filed

20

within fourteen days after service of the motion and a reply filed seven days after service of the

21

response. LR 7-2(b)-(c). The court sees no reason to depart from a normal briefing schedule in

22

this instance.

23

Accordingly,

24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the SEC’s motion for

25

briefing schedule on remedies, (doc. # 167), is GRANTED insofar as it seeks a briefing

26

schedule, but DENIED insofar as it asks the court to adopt the briefing schedule proposed.

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall brief the issue of remedies pursuant to
the court’s briefing schedule as detailed above.
DATED December 1, 2014.

4
5

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-