United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Seabolt
| United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Michael T Seabolt |
| 2:2020mc00002 |
| February 3, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 3, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER that Respondent shall show cause why the Court should not enter an order enforcing his compliance with the SEC order no later than 2/19/2020. Show Cause Response due by 2/19/2020. Should Respondent fail to file a show cause response by this deadline, the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment enforcing the SEC order and to close the case. Petitioner shall serve this order on respondent, and provide proof of such to the Court no later than 2/11/2020. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/3/2020. (MMO)
|
| Filing 3 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes for a ruling on Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an Order under Section 20(C) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 209(d) of the Investor Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 42(D) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 Enforcing Compliance with a Commission Order. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: MC-20-2-PHX-DLR. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ARC) |
| Filing 2 DECLARATION of Christy J White re: #1 Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an Order under Section 20(C) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 209(d) of the Investor Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 42(D) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 Enforcing Compliance with a Commission Order by Petitioner United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (White, Christy) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(ARC) |
| Filing 1 Miscellaneous Case Opening Regarding: Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an Order under Section 20(C) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Section 209(d) of the Investor Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 42(D) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 Enforcing Compliance with a Commission Order filed by United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (White, Christy) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ARC) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Arizona 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
| Search for this case: United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Seabolt | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: United States Securities and Exchange Commission | |
| Represented By: | Christy White |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Michael T Seabolt | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
