Securities and Exchange Commission v. Locke Capital Management, Inc. et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Locke Capital Management, Inc. and Leila C. Jenkins |
| 1:2009cv00100 |
| March 9, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Rhode Island |
| Securities/Commodities Office |
| Providence |
| David L. Martin |
| William E Smith |
| Plaintiff |
| U.S. Government Plaintiff |
| 15:77 Securities Fraud |
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
81
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT LEILA C. JENKINS in favor of Securities and Exchange Commission against Leila C. Jenkins. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 6/30/11. (Jackson, Ryan)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER granting 73 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment; Supplemental memo due by 11/30/10; Reply due by 12/14/10; no further extensions. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 11/10/10. (Jackson, Ryan)
|
|
Filing
69
OPINION AND ORDER granting 41 Motion for Default Judgment against Locke Capital Management, Inc. in the amount of $7,569,904.00; Further, Locke Capital Management, Inc. is enjoined from future securities law violations; Judgment will enter at the conclusion of this case, once the SEC's claims against non-defaulting Defendant Jenkins have been resolved. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 7/21/10. (Jackson, Ryan)
|
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 Rhode Island 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.
