Securities & Exchange Commission v. RBF Trust LLC

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61831-CIV-SINGHAL

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RBF TRUST, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________/ ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Paulo Fernando de Bastos’ (“de Bastos”) Motion to Sever (DE [88]). Plaintiff moves to sever the trial of his case from the corporate defendants. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied. Plaintiff alleges that de Bastos and his co-Defendants engaged in a fraudulent, unregistered securities offering, raising more than $40 million from hundreds of investors in connection with the sale and management of investment properties in Detroit, Michigan. The Complaint is brought against deBastos, co-Defendant Joao Pedro Fonseca (“Fonseca”), and four corporate Defendants. De Bastos moves to sever his case from that of the co-Defendants and argues that failing to sever will “impair his constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial” and affect his ability to mount an effective defense. Plaintiff also argues that his alleged involvement in offering unregistered securities is much lower than the other defendants. Rule 42(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “affords a district court discretion to order separate trials where such order would further convenience, avoid prejudice, or promote efficiency.” Giffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). None of these goals would be served by holding separate trials in this case. First, the corporate defendants will not be going to trial; default judgments have been entered against them. Second, if the corporate Defendants were to proceed to trial, the legal and factual proof at trial would greatly overlap; the separate trials would be nearly identical. There is no basis for holding separate trials. Bifurcation would not promote judicial efficiency, avoid prejudice, or further convenience. To the contrary, separate trials would be time consuming, expensive, and duplicative. For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Sever (DE [88]) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of May 2023.

RAAG 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF and by US Mail to: Paulo Fernando De Bastos, pro se clo TFRE 2637 E. Atlantic Blvd. #1004 Pompano Beach, FL 33062