Opinion
22 Civ. 3553 (VM)
10-27-2022
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. DAVID STONE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
VICTOR MARRERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On September 30, 2022, the Court directed all defendants to confer and inform the Court within one week as to what extent each defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss, if any, is grounded in the same or substantially similar issues, and, if so, indicate what common questions could be raised on a joint motion. (See Dkt. No. 134.)
On October 7, 2022, counsel for defendant John Robson (“Robson”) submitted a letter in response to the Court's Order, having conferred with counsel for other defendants and relief defendants. (See Dkt. No. 149.) Defendant Robson and relief defendants Brett Adams (“Adams”), Justin Blakesley (“Blakesley”), and Harold Stone (collectively the “Relief Defendants”) informed the Court that they anticipate moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint or joining another moving party's brief.
Regarding the anticipated motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on grounds sought by defendant Robson only, the Court directs Robson and the SEC to advise the Court whether they consent for the Court to deem the letters exchanged (see Dkt. Nos. 78, 83, 86, 87, 100, 116) to constitute a fully briefed motion and rule on the basis of the limited briefs, or whether the parties request supplemental or full briefing on Robson's motion. If the parties request supplemental or full briefing, they shall submit a proposed briefing schedule within one week of the date of this Order.
Regarding the motions to dismiss the SEC's claims for disgorgement due to, among other things, lack of identifiable victims of the alleged misconduct and, with respect to the Relief Defendants, the lack of allegations of wrongdoing by the Relief Defendants, the Court directs Robson, Adams, Blakesley, Harold Stone, and the SEC, to advise the Court whether they consent for the Court to deem the letters exchanged (see Dkt. Nos. 77, 78, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 99, 100, 111, 116, 117, 127) to constitute a fully briefed motion and rule on the basis of the limited briefs. Alternatively, if the parties request supplemental or full briefing on the issue, they shall submit a proposed briefing schedule within one week of the date of this Order.
Regarding motions to dismiss by Adams and Blakesley based on the sufficiency of the pleadings relating to whether the funds for which disgorgement is sought derive from the alleged scheme, the Court directs Adams, Blakesley, and the SEC to submit a proposed briefing schedule within one week of the date of this Order.
SO ORDERED.