Securities and Exchange Commission v. Imran Husain et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Imran Husain and Gregg Evan Jaclin |
| 2:2016cv03250 |
| May 12, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F. Eick |
| Otis D. Wright |
| Securities/Commodities |
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
124
FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT IMRAN HUSAIN 22 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Defendant Imran Husain is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating the Securities Exchange Act as defined herein. Defendant shall pay a civil penalty in the a mount of $1,757,00.00 within 14 days after entry of this Final Judgment. Defendant shall pay post-judgment interest on any delinquent amounts pursuant to 28 USC 1961. The Commission shall remit the funds paid pursuant to this paragraph to the United States Treasury. The claims in the SEC's Complaint against Husain for secondary, aiding and abetting violations of the securities laws (Claims 2, 5, 8-10) are dismissed as moot. The SEC's request for disgorgement against Husain is denied. (lc)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 97 ; AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT 105 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The SEC's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7; The SEC's MSJ is DENIED as to Claims 2, 5, and 8 through 10; The Court GRANTS the SEC's request for an order permanently enjoining Husain from violating the securities laws; The Court GRANTS the SEC's req uest for civil penalties in the amountof $1,757,000.00; The Court GRANTS the SEC's request to bar Husain from serving as an officer or director of a public company and from participating in anoffering of penny stock for a period of seven years from the date ofjudgment in this case; and The Court DENIES the SEC's request for disgorgement.The SEC shall submit a Proposed Judgment no later than seven days after the date of this order. (lc)
|
|
Filing
79
JUDGMENT 78 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Defendant Gregg Evan Jaclin is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Section 5 of theSecurities Act. Defendant is liable for disgorgement of $32,700, representing profits gained as a re sult of the conduct alleged in the Complaint, together with prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $7,773.80. Defendant shall satisfy this obligation by paying $40,473.80 to the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before November 29, 2019. SEC has determined to forgo seeking a civil penalty against Defendant, and the claim for a civil penalty against Defendant is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. (lc)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER RE SCHEDULING by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: After considering Defendants statements in the Joint Report, the Court will not issue a scheduling order at this time. Defendants shall submit any motion to stay to the Court on or before June 15, 2017. Failure to submit the motion by that date will result in issuance of scheduling order without further notice. The May 22, 2017 scheduling conference is vacated and taken off calendar. (lc). Modified on 5/16/2017 (lc).
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS 36 , 38 by Judge Otis D. Wright,II: The Court DENIES Defendants motions to dismiss in their entirety. The Court also DENIES Defendants motions to strike in their entirety. (lc). Modified on 3/1/2017. (lc).
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 34 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Due to the complexity of this case, the Court will approve the parties request for an extension. All motions to dismiss shall now be filed on or before December 23, 2016. All opposit ion shall be filed on or before January 20, 2017. All replies shall be filed on or before January 30, 2017. As the Court anticipates multiple motions to dismiss, hearings on the motions to dismiss shall be placed on calendar for February 27, 2017. An y motions to dismiss filed shouldexplicitly identify whether, and why, they believe Janus Capital Grp., Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 137 (2011) applies in this enforcement action. Provided that Janus does apply, the parties should address its application, if any, to each of the claims for which they are seeking dismissal and its effect on prior applicable case law, if any, for that respective claim. (lc)
|
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 California Central 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.
