Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided September 14, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00612·Unknown

Opinion

1] | WILLIAM R. URGA, ESQ. # 1195 BRIAN E. HOLTHUS, ESQ. #2720 2 | DAVID J. MALLEY, ESQ. #8171 JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY & HOLTHUS 3 | 50S. Stephanie Street, Suite 202 Henderson, Nevada 89012 4 | Telephone: (702) 699-7500 / Facsimile: (702) 699-7555 Email: wru@juwlaw.com; beh@juwlaw.com; djm@juwlaw.com 5 EDWARD W. COCHRAN, ESQ. GEORGE W. COCHRAN, ESQ. 6 | (OHIO Bar No. 0032942) (OHIO Bar No. 0031691) 20030 Marchmont Rd. 1981 Crossfield Circle 7 || Shaker Heights, OH 44122-2852 Kent, OH 44240 Tel: (216) 751-5546 / Fax: (216) 751-5564 Tel: (330) 607-2187 / Fax: (330) 230-6136 8 || Email: edward@edweochran.com Email: lawchrist@gmail.com (Admitted pro hac vice) (Admitted pro hac vice) 9 Attorneys for Intervenors 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA sm Il 2% SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-00612-CDS-EJY 63 12 COMMISSION, 28 Plaintiff, vs UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 7-DAY =. 14 | MATTHEW WADE BEASLEY; BEASLEY | EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO REPLY TO ES LAW GROUP PC; JEFFREY J. JUDD; THE SEC’S AND RECEIVER’S 2S 15 CHRISTOPHER R. HUMPHRIES; J&J RESPONSES TO KRISTIE YOUNG’S CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., an Alaska | AND OMID SHAHABE’S JOINT Corporation; J&J CONSULTING SERVICES, MOTION TO INTERVENE Z INC., a Nevada Corporation; J AND J 17 PURCHASING LLC; SHANE M. JAGER; JASON M. JONGEWARD; DENNY (FIRST REQUEST) 18 SEYBERT; ROLAND TANNER; LARRY JEFFERY; JASON A. JENNE; SETH 19 JOHNSON; CHRISTOPHER M. MADSEN; _ | [Declaration of George W. Cochran submitted 20 MURPHY; CAMERON ROHNER; AND WARREN ROSEGREEN, 21 Defendants. 22 THE JUDD IRREVOCABLE TRUST; PAJ 23 CONSULTING INC.; BJ HOLDINGS LLC; STIRLING CONSULTING, L.L.C.; CJ 24 INVESTMENTS, LLC; JL2 INVESTMENTS, LLC; ROCKING HORSE PROPERTIES, 5 LLC; TRIPLE THREAT BASKETBALL, LLC; ACAC LLC; ANTHONY MICHAEL 26 ALBERTO, JR.,; and MONTY CREW LLC, 27 Relief Defendants. 28 961287 Paoe 1 af &

1 Pursuant to LR IA 6-1, LR 1A 6-2, LR I 7-2 and LR II 7-3, non-parties Kristie Young 2 and Omid Shahabe (“Proposed Intervenors”) hereby move this Honorable Court for 7-day 3 extensions of time to reply to Receiver Goeff Winkler’s opposition (ECF No. 300) and the 4 Securities and Exchange Commission’s response (ECF No. 303) to the motion to intervene filed g Pp 5 6 | August 31, 2022 (ECF No. 281). This is Proposed Intervenors’ first motion to extend time to 7 reply to the Receiver’s and SEC’s response to the Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene. 8 || For cause, Proposed Intervenors state that: 9 1. The attorney who drafted the motion to intervene has tested positive for COVID-19 and is 10 experiencing debilitating symptoms that affect his ability to prepare the reply;

28 2. The responses to Proposed Intervenors’ motion raise substantively distinct arguments that p p y g 3% 12 a 8 3 require more time to address adequately. a 3 14 The responding parties do not oppose their motion. 22 45 DATED this 14th day of September, 2022. 16 JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY & HOLTHUS 22017 . a ra By: __ /s/ William R. Urga, Esq. Be WILLIAM R. URGA, ESQ. # 1195 418 BRIAN E. HOLTHUS, ESQ. #2720 DAVID J. MALLEY, ESQ. #8171 19 50 S. Stephanie Street, Suite 202 0 Henderson, Nevada 89012 T: (702) 699-7500 / F:(702) 699-7555 21 EDWARD W. COCHRAN, ESQ. (OHIO Bar No. 0032942) 22 20030 Marchmont Rd. > Shaker Heights, OH 44122-2852 3 Tel: (216) 751-5546 / Fax: (216) 751-5564 (Admitted pro hac vice) GEORGE W. COCHRAN, ESQ. (OHIO Bar No. 0031691) 25 1981 Crossfield Circle Kent, OH 44240 26 Tel: (330) 607-2187 / Fax: (330) 230-6136 17 (Admitted pro hac vice) 28 Attorneys for Intervenors 961287 Paoe □

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1), like all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[is] to be liberally 3 construed to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits.” 4 Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir.1983) (quoting Staren v. American Nat'l Bank & 5 6 Trust Co. of Chicago, 529 F.2d 1257, 1263 (7th Cir.1976)); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 1 (“[The 7 | Federal Rules] should be construed, administered, and employed by the Court and the parties to 8 || secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”). 9 Consequently, requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed 10 should “normally [] be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief OW 2% or prejudice to the adverse party.” 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice Se 12 2 8 3 and Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2004).

3 14 Even if Proposed Intervenors filed their motion after the deadline, the circumstances 2 3 15 || clearly demonstrate “good cause” under Rule 6(b)(1). Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 16 | F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been

17 | construed broadly across procedural and statutory contexts.) Here, the principal drafter of 18 Proposed Intervenors’ reply has declared he is cognitively impaired due to COVID-19. See 19 Declaration of George W. Cochran filed concurrently herewith. In addition, the response briefs 20 raise substantively distinct arguments that require more time to address than currently permitted. 2 Since there is no indication of bad faith or prejudice and the extension is limited to 7 days, 23 | /// 24 | ///

26 /// 27 /// 28 961287 Pace □□ □□ &

1 | Proposed Intervenors respectfully submit the motion should be granted. Ahanchian, 624 2 F.3d at 1259. 3 4 JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY & HOLTHUS By: __ /s/ William R. Urga, Esq. 6 WILLIAM R. URGA, ESQ. # 1195 BRIAN E. HOLTHUS, ESQ. #2720 7 DAVID J. MALLEY, ESQ. #8171 50 S. Stephanie Street, Suite 202 8 Henderson, Nevada 89012 T: (702) 699-7500 / F:(702) 699-7555 9 EDWARD W. COCHRAN, ESQ. 10 (OHIO Bar No. 0032942) = 20030 Marchmont Rd. 11 Shaker Heights, OH 44122-2852 Tel: (216) 751-5546 / Fax: (216) 751-5564 63 19 (Admitted pro hac vice) GEORGE W. COCHRAN, ESQ. 43 (OHIO Bar No. 0031691) 1981 Crossfield Circle 14 Kent, OH 44240 BR Tel: (330) 607-2187 / Fax: (330) 230-6136 28 45 (Admitted pro hac vice) 2 5 16 Attorneys for Intervenors <= 17 IT IS SO ORDERED: 18 “19 20 UNITED STAT AGISTRATE JUDGE 21 DATED: September 14, 2022 22 3 /// 94 | /// 25 | /// 26 | □□□ 27 /// 28 961287 Pooe A of &

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley, (D. Nev. 2022).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related