United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Johnson
| United States Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Reid S Johnson |
| 2:2021mc00014 |
| April 7, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Dominic W Lanza |
| Other Statutes: Securities/Commodities |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCY re: #1 Miscellaneous Case Opening filed by United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Document not in compliance with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) - Party names must be capitalized using proper upper and lower case type. No further action is required. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ARC) |
| Filing 3 This case has been assigned to the Honorable Dominic W Lanza for a ruling on Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an Order Compelling Respondent Reid S. Johnson to Show Cause Why a Judgment Should not be Entered Against him Pursuant to Section 21(e) 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. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: MC-21-14-PHX-DWL. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (ARC) |
| Filing 2 DECLARATION of Shuman Sohrn re: #1 Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an Order Compelling Respondent Reid S. Johnson to Show Cause Why a Judgment Should not be Entered Against him Pursuant to Section 21(e) 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 by Petitioner United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (Sohrn, Shuman) (ARC) |
| Filing 1 Miscellaneous Case Opening Regarding: Application of the Securities and Exchange Commission for an Order Compelling Respondent Reid S. Johnson to Show Cause Why a Judgment Should not be Entered Against him Pursuant to Section 21(e) 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 filed by United States Securities and Exchange Commission. (Sohrn, Shuman) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Proposed Final Judgment)(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. Johnson | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Reid S Johnson | |
| 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 ] |
| Petitioner: United States Securities and Exchange Commission | |
| Represented By: | Shuman Sohrn |
| 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.
