Securities and Exchange Commission v. Caplitz et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Gregg D. Caplitz, Insight Onsite Strategic Management, LLC, Rosalind Herman, Brad Herman, Charlene Herman, Brian Herman and The Knew Finance Experts, Inc. |
| 1:2013cv10612 |
| March 15, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| Boston Office |
| Barnstable |
| Mark L. Wolf |
| Securities/Commodities |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 77 Securities Fraud |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
46
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 45 Motion to Stay The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction is appropriate and acceptable to the court. Having balanced the competing considerations, the court finds that defendants' request fo r a stay of the case pending resolution of the referenced criminal case is also justified. See SEC v. Dresser Industries, 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Microfinancial, Inc. Premier Holidays International, 385 F. 3d 72 (1st Cir. 2004). Therefore, it is hereby Ordered that: (1) this Motion is ALLOWED; (2) the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction is ENTERED; (3) the June 6, 2013 hearing is CANCELLED; and (4) defendants shall confer with the SEC and inform the court when the related criminal case is resolved. (Hohler, Daniel)
|
|
Filing
24
Judge Mark L. Wolf: ORDER entered. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Counsel for the parties shall confer forthwith and, by March 22, 2013, at 12:00 noon, inform the court of whether defendants agree to an extension of the TRO. If so, the parties shall propose a schedule to complete the briefing concerning the Motion and state their respective positions as to whether it will be necessary or appropriate for the court to hear testimony from any particular witness(es). 2. If the defe ndants do not consent to an extension of the TRO: a) The defendants shall, by March 26, 2013, respond to the Motion and identify any potential witness(es) that they propose testify at the hearing on it. b) The SEC shall, by March 28, 2013, file any reply, and identify any potential witness(es) that it proposes testify at the hearing on the Motion. c) A hearing on the Motion shall be held on April 1, 2013, at 11: 00 a.m. Unless otherwise ordered, each potential witness identified by a party s hall be present to testify, if necessary, at the hearing. 3. By March 26, 2013, Julie M. Riewe, Deputy Chief of the SEC's Enforcement Division's Asset Management Unit, shall file an affidavit and supporting memorandum seeking to demonstr ate why the court should not find that the statement attributed to her in the attached March 18, 2013 press release and March 19, 2012 Boston Globe article violates Rule 83.2A of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which prohibits certain extrajudicial statements. C.f. United States v. Flemmi, 223 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D. Mass. 2000). Her affidavit should, among other things, address whether she was aware when she made her statement that Gregg D. Caplitz is also a defendant in a pending criminal case in the District of Massachusetts, United States v. Caplitz, Cr. No. 12-10015-WGY, and whether she or the SEC have communicated or cooperated with government agents and/or attorneys with regard to the investigation and/or prosecution of that criminal case.(Hohler, Daniel)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
