Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chen et al

Filing 190

ORDER granting Defendants' 184 Motion to Dismiss Relief Defendants. John Chen, Tom Chen, Moses Lake 96000 Building LLC, North American Foreign Trade Zone Industries, LLC, Sun Basin Orchards, LLC, Washington Economic Development Capital II, LLC, Washington Economic Development Capital II, LLC, Bobby Chen and Heidi Chen are dismissed. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

Case 2:17-cv-00405-JLR Document 190 Filed 10/17/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

12
13

v.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER

Plaintiff,

ANDY SHIN FONG CHEN, et al.,

14
15

CASE NO. C17-0405JLR

Defendants.
Before the court is Defendants Andy Shin Fong Chen and Aero Space Port
International Group, Inc.’s (“ASPI”) (collectively, “Defendants”) renewed motion to
dismiss Relief Defendants North American Foreign Trade Zone Industries, LLC
(“NAFTZI”), Washington Economic Development Capital II, LLC (“EDC II”), Moses
Lake 96000 Building LLC (“Moses Lake”), Sun Basin Orchards, LLC (“Sun Basin”),
John Chen, Tom Chen, Bobby Chen, and Heidi Chen (collectively, the “remaining Relief
Defendants”). (Mot. (Dkt. # 184).) Plaintiff the Securities and Exchange Commission

ORDER - 1

Case 2:17-cv-00405-JLR Document 190 Filed 10/17/22 Page 2 of 3

1

(the “SEC”) does not oppose the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 189).) The court has considered

2

the submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law.

3

Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the

4

remaining Relief Defendants.

5

On August 16, 2022, the court ruled on the SEC’s third motion for partial final

6

judgment and entered a final judgment against Defendants. 1 (See 8/16/22 Order;

7

Judgment (Dkt. # 181).) The court concluded, in relevant part, that no disgorgement

8

should be awarded against Defendants; that Defendant Mr. Chen must pay a civil penalty

9

of $75,000; and that Defendant ASPI must pay a civil penalty of $375,000. (See 8/16/22

10

Order at 8-10, 17; see also 10/18/21 Order at 8-12; Judgment at 4-7.) Defendants paid

11

their civil penalties to the Receiver in accordance with the court’s order. (See Receiver

12

Dist. Mot. (Dkt. # 182) at 2; 8/16/22 Order at 17; Judgment at 4-7.)

13

In its August 16, 2022 order, the court also denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss

14

the remaining Relief Defendants, concluding that dismissal of the remaining Relief

15

Defendants was not appropriate at that time because: “(1) Defendants have not

16

adequately verified that they have sufficient funds at their disposal to satisfy any

17

judgment this court may enter; and (2) the SEC is not currently seeking a judgment

18

against the remaining Relief Defendants.” (8/16/22 Order at 16.) However, Defendants

19

have since satisfied their monetary obligations under the judgment entered by this court

20
21
22

1

The court set forth the factual and procedural background of this case in detail in its
February 15, 2019, October 18, 2021, and August 16, 2022 orders (see 2/15/19 Order (Dkt. # 53)
at 2-18; 10/18/21 Order (Dkt. # 119) at 2-5; 8/16/22 Order (Dkt. # 180)) and does not repeat
them here.
ORDER - 2

Case 2:17-cv-00405-JLR Document 190 Filed 10/17/22 Page 3 of 3

1

(see Receiver Dist. Mot. at 2), and the SEC has confirmed that it does not intend to seek a

2

judgment against the remaining Relief Defendants (see generally Resp.).

3

Accordingly, the court finds that dismissal of the remaining Relief Defendants is

4

now appropriate and GRANTS Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the remaining

5

Relief Defendants (Dkt. # 184).

6

Dated this 17th day of October, 2022.

7

A

8

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER - 3