Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wahi

W.D. Washington

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wahi

DecidedMarch 17, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-01009

StatusUnknown

This text of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wahi (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wahi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wahi, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01009-TL COMMISSION, 12 ORDER REGARDING THE FILING Plaintiff, 13 v. OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS 14 ISHAN WAHI et al, 15 Defendants. 16

17 On July 21, 2002, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sued 18 Defendants Ishan Wahi, Nikhil Wahi, and Sameer Ramani for alleged insider trading of certain 19 crypto asset securities in violation of Sections 21(d), 21A, and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act 20 of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u, 78u-l, and 78aa. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants Ishan Wahi and Nikhil Wahi 21 filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2023. Dkt. No. 33. To date, five motions for leave to 22 file amicus curiae briefs have been filed. Dkt Nos. 39, 43, 56, 67, and 78. The SEC has not yet 23 24 1 filed its response. Briefing on the motion to dismiss will be completed on May 8, 2023. Dkt. No. 2 25. 3 Courts have broad discretion to permit or prohibit amicus participation. Hoptowit v. Ray, 4 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

5 472 (1995); accord United States v. Phan, No. CR18-86, 2018 WL 11393436, at *1 (W.D. 6 Wash. July 25, 2018) (explaining that a court may “grant or refuse leave according [to whether] 7 it deems the proffered information timely, useful, or otherwise” (quotation omitted)). Courts may 8 consider amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning legal issues that have potential 9 ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or 10 perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to 11 provide.” Beldock v. Microsoft Corp., No. C22-1082, 2022 WL 17551138, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 12 Dec. 9, 2022) (citing additional cases). But amicus briefs provide unique or helpful information 13 only to the extent that they are not duplicative of arguments made by the Parties or other amici. 14 To ensure that any additional amicus briefs will provide unique or helpful information

15 beyond what the Parties (and other amici) can provide and that will not be duplicative, no other 16 person or entity shall be permitted to file an amicus brief in this case until the close of briefing 17 on the motion to dismiss. If appropriate, the Court will set a schedule for the filing of additional 18 amicus briefs after the pending motion to dismiss is fully briefed. 19 Dated this 17th day of March 2023. 20 A 21 Tana Lin United States District Judge 22

23 24

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01009-TL COMMISSION, 12 ORDER REGARDING THE FILING Plaintiff, 13 v. OF AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS 14 ISHAN WAHI et al, 15 Defendants. 16

17 On July 21, 2002, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) sued 18 Defendants Ishan Wahi, Nikhil Wahi, and Sameer Ramani for alleged insider trading of certain 19 crypto asset securities in violation of Sections 21(d), 21A, and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act 20 of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u, 78u-l, and 78aa. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants Ishan Wahi and Nikhil Wahi 21 filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 6, 2023. Dkt. No. 33. To date, five motions for leave to 22 file amicus curiae briefs have been filed. Dkt Nos. 39, 43, 56, 67, and 78. The SEC has not yet 23 24 1 filed its response. Briefing on the motion to dismiss will be completed on May 8, 2023. Dkt. No. 2 25. 3 Courts have broad discretion to permit or prohibit amicus participation. Hoptowit v. Ray, 4 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.

5 472 (1995); accord United States v. Phan, No. CR18-86, 2018 WL 11393436, at *1 (W.D. 6 Wash. July 25, 2018) (explaining that a court may “grant or refuse leave according [to whether] 7 it deems the proffered information timely, useful, or otherwise” (quotation omitted)). Courts may 8 consider amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning legal issues that have potential 9 ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or 10 perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to 11 provide.” Beldock v. Microsoft Corp., No. C22-1082, 2022 WL 17551138, at *1 (W.D. Wash. 12 Dec. 9, 2022) (citing additional cases). But amicus briefs provide unique or helpful information 13 only to the extent that they are not duplicative of arguments made by the Parties or other amici. 14 To ensure that any additional amicus briefs will provide unique or helpful information

15 beyond what the Parties (and other amici) can provide and that will not be duplicative, no other 16 person or entity shall be permitted to file an amicus brief in this case until the close of briefing 17 on the motion to dismiss. If appropriate, the Court will set a schedule for the filing of additional 18 amicus briefs after the pending motion to dismiss is fully briefed. 19 Dated this 17th day of March 2023. 20 A 21 Tana Lin United States District Judge 22

23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Wahi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-wahi-wawd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack