Opinion
Civil Action 22-cv-10092
07-21-2022
ORDER GRANTING THE RECEIVER'S MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AND DIRECTING LOUIS ARRIOLA, DANIEL OSHATZ, JACK LAYTON, AND JONATHAN DEUTSCH TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE COURT SHOULD NOT SENTENCE THEM ACCORDINGLY
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is the Receiver's motion for, among other things, to hold Louis Arriola, Daniel Oshatz, Jack Layton, and Jonathan Deutsch in civil contempt. (ECF No. 58). None of them responded to the motion.
The Court held a hearing on July 12, 2022 to determine whether the above individuals violated the Court's orders directing them to cooperate with the Receiver. (ECF Nos. 39, 78). Arriola and Layton did not appear at the hearing. Deutsch appeared through counsel. And Oshatz appeared pro se. For the reasons stated on the record, it is hereby,
ORDERED that the portion of the Receiver's motion seeking to hold Arriola, Oshatz, Layton, and Deutsch in civil contempt (ECF No. 58) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Arriola, Oshatz, Layton, and Deutsch shall show cause by no later than Wednesday, August 3, 2022 as to why this Court should not sentence them for civil contempt.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Receiver. Crestmark, or any of the intervenors may respond to Arriola, Oshatz, Layton, and/or Deutsch's show cause briefing by no later than Wednesday, August 17, 2022 .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall conduct a sentencing hearing on Wednesday, August 24, 2022 . Arriola, Oshatz, Layton, and Deutsch shall appear at the hearing IN-PERSON .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall forgo sentencing Arriola, Oshatz, Layton, and Deutsch for civil contempt in the event the Receiver provides a declaration, by no later than Monday, August 22, 2022, certifying their compliance with the Court's orders directing them to cooperate with the Receiver. (ECF Nos. 39, 78).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Oshatz shall supply the Court with the following information by no later than Wednesday, August 3, 2022 :
1. every jurisdiction that has ever licensed him to practice law;
2. his current status to practice law in each of those jurisdictions; and
3. if applicable, a concise explanation as to why he is no longer practicing law in any of those jurisdictions.