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