Securities and Exchange Commission v. Sripetch

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 14, 2024
• Docket: 3:20-cv-01864
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No.: 20-cv-01864-H-AGS COMMISSION, 12 ORDER: Plaintiff, 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT 14 SRIPETCH’S MOTION TO VACATE ONGKARUCK SRIPETCH; AMANDA 15 THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 6, 2024 FLORES; BREHNEN KNIGHT; ORDER; AND 16 ANDREW MCALPINE, ASHMIT

PATEL; MICHAEL WEXLER; 17 [Doc. No. 135.] DOMINIC WILLIAMS; ADTRON INC.

18 a/k/a STOCKPALOOZA.COM; ATG (2) SETTING BRIEFING INC.; DOIT, LTD.; DOJI CAPITAL, 19 SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF SEC’S INC.; KING MUTUAL SOLUTIONS MOTION FOR REMEDIES 20 INC.; OPTIMUS PRIME FINANCIAL INC.; ORCA BRIDGE; REDLINE 21 INTERNATIONAL; and UAIM 22 CORPORATION, 23 Defendants. 24 On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) 25 filed a motion for remedies against Defendant Ongkaruck Sripetch. (Doc. No. 118.) 26 Defendant Sripetch never filed an opposition to Plaintiff SEC’s motion for remedies 27 despite the Court granting him a sua sponte extension of time to do so. (Doc. No. 126.) 28 1 On February 6, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff SEC’s motion for remedies, and the Court 2 imposed $4,115,365.88 in disgorgement and $1,708,437.26 in prejudgment interest against 3 Defendant Sripetch. (Doc. No. 132 at 10.) 4 On February 14, 2024, Defendant Sripetch filed a motion to vacate the Court’s 5 February 6, 2024 order granting Plaintiff SEC’s motion for remedies. (Doc. No. 135.) 6 Defense counsel represents that Sripetch’s motion to vacate is not opposed by the SEC. 7 (See Doc. No. 135-3, Creekmore Decl. ¶ 5.) In the motion to vacate, Defendant explains: 8 Here, the failure to oppose the [SEC’s] Remedies Motion was entirely based on defense counsel’s mistake. As explained fully in the attached 9 declarations of Kenneth P. White, Tyler R. Creekmore, and Letty Perez, 10 defense counsel mistakenly failed to calendar the motion or opposition date was mistakenly not calendared and notice of the Court’s extension of time to 11 file an opposition went unnoticed due to a clerical error. (See generally White, 12 Creekmore, and Perez declarations.) Defense counsel’s usual practice for calendaring items is to have the office’s paralegal and legal secretary, Letty 13 Perez, calendar any items filed on the CM/ECF system. Perez Decl. ¶ 2; 14 Creekmore Decl. ¶ 2. Ms. Perez then sends an electronic version of any CM/ECF document and the calendar notice to the responsible attorneys for 15 review. Perez Decl. ¶ 2. The attorney primarily responsible for the case then 16 handles the matter on the proper response deadline. Creekmore Decl. ¶ 3. 17 In this case, that process broke down because of errors in failing to add Tyler Creekmore to the ECF service and failing to send email notifications to 18 him. Tyler Creekmore, the associate attorney responsible for the case, was 19 not receiving CM/ECF notifications of filed documents directly and was relying on the notice provided to Mrs. Perez instead. Creekmore Decl. ¶ 3. 20 The SEC’s Motion For Remedies as to Defendant Sripetch was not calendared 21 because Ms. Perez inadvertently saved the Motion to the file without alerting Mr. Creekmore or calendaring it. Perez Decl. ¶ 2. This clerical error resulted 22 in Mr. Creekmore not seeing the motion and therefore Mr. Sripetch’s failure 23 to oppose the SEC’s Remedies Motion. 24 (Doc. No. 135-1 at 6; see generally Doc. No. 135-2, White Decl.; Doc. No. 135-3, 25 Creekmore Decl.; Doc. No. 135-4, Perez Decl.) 26 After considering the arguments and authorities set forth in Defendant Sripetch’s 27 motion and the relevant equitable factors, the Court grants Defendant Sripetch’s motion to 28 vacate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223– 1 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 2 ||U.S. 380, 395 (1993)); Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 3 |}2010). The Court vacates its February 6, 2024 order granting Plaintiff SEC’s motion for 4 ||remedies (Doc. No. 135). Plaintiff SEC’s motion for remedies against Defendant Sripetch 5 ||is pending again now. Defendant Sripetch must file his opposition to the SEC’s motion by 6 || Thursday, February 29, 2024. Plaintiff SEC must file its reply in support of its motion 7 Thursday, March 7, 2024. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || DATED: February 14, 2024 | | l | | | 10 MARILYN W. HUFF, Distri ge 1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28