Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Mark Marino et al
Petitioner: Securities and Exchange Commission
Respondent: John Mark Marino and Jason Johnson
Case Number: 2:2021mc01116
Filed: December 21, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha
Referring Judge: Steve Kim
Nature of Suit: Securities/Commodities
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on January 20, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
January 20, 2022 Filing 13 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Order,,,, Terminate Hearings,,, #11 ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS served on January 13, 2022. (Longo, Amy)
January 20, 2022 Filing 12 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Order,,,, Terminate Hearings,,, #11 ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS served on January 13, 2022. (Longo, Amy)
January 12, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim, re Application for an Order Compelling Compliance with Investigative Subpoenas #1 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the SEC's Application for an Order Compelling Compliance with Investigative Subpoenas is GRANTED. Respondent John Mark Marino shall produce all documents responsive to the SEC's investigative subpoena issued on October 5, 2021, to the SEC staff on or before January 24, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. PST. Respondent Jason Jai Johnson shall produce all documents responsive to the SECs investigative subpoena issued on October 5, 2021, to the SEC staff on or before January 24, 2022, at 5:00 p.m. PST. Respondent John Mark Marino shall appear to testify before officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission remotely using the Webex internet platform on February 4, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. PST. (see document for further details) (hr)
January 12, 2022 Filing 10 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Reply,, #9 served on January 12, 2022. (Longo, Amy)
January 12, 2022 Filing 9 REPLY filed by Petitioner Securities and Exchange Commission to Application/Motion/Request (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, #1 (Attachments: #1 Declaration IN SUPPORT OF SECS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit Exhibit 10, #12 Proposed Order COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS)(Longo, Amy)
December 30, 2021 Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Order to Show Cause,, #5 ORDER TO SHOW WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE UPON RESPONDENT JOHN MARK MARINO served on 12/23/2021. (Longo, Amy)
December 30, 2021 Filing 7 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Application/Motion/Request (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, #1 APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS UPON RESPONDENT JOHN MARK MARINO served on 12/22/2021. (Longo, Amy)
December 30, 2021 Filing 6 PROOF OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Application/Motion/Request (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, #1 , Order to Show Cause,, #5 APPLICATION FOR ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS UPON RESPONDENT JASON JOHNSON served on 12/23/2021. (Longo, Amy)
December 23, 2021 Filing 4 DECLARATION OF SERVICE filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission, re Text Only Scheduling Notice,, 3 Order to Show Cause served on December 23, 2021. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Longo, Amy)
December 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim.IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on January 19, 2022, at 1:30 p.m., each of the Respondents shall appear before the Honorable Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge, in Courtroom 540, located at the Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street in Los Angeles, California to show cause, if there be any, why an Order Compelling Compliance with Investigative Subpoenas should not be granted in accordance with the Application filed by the SEC herein. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (clee)
December 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REFERRING APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS (DKT. #1 ) TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEVE KIM by Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha: The Court has reviewed the Application For An Order To Show Cause and Application For An Order Compelling Compliance With Investigative Subpoenas (DKT. #1 ) and refers the matter to Judge Steve Kim determination. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (tf) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
December 22, 2021 Filing 2 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha and Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. (car)
December 21, 2021 Filing 1 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS No Fee Required - US Government, filed by Applicant Securities and Exchange Commission. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, #2 Declaration of Christopher A. Nowlin, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6, #9 Exhibit 7, #10 Exhibit 8, #11 Exhibit 9, #12 Exhibit 10, #13 Exhibit 11, #14 Exhibit 12, #15 Exhibit 13, #16 Exhibit 14, #17 Exhibit 15, #18 Exhibit 16, #19 Exhibit 17, #20 Exhibit 18, #21 Exhibit 19, #22 Exhibit 20, #23 Exhibit 21, #24 Exhibit 22, #25 Exhibit 23, #26 Exhibit 24, #27 Exhibit 25, #28 Exhibit 26, #29 Exhibit 27, #30 Exhibit 28, #31 Exhibit 29, #32 Exhibit 30, #33 Exhibit 31, #34 Exhibit 32, #35 Exhibit 33, #36 Exhibit 34, #37 Exhibit 35, #38 Exhibit 36, #39 Exhibit 37, #40 Exhibit 38, #41 Exhibit 39, #42 Exhibit 40, #43 Exhibit 41, #44 Proposed Order TO SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS SHOULD NOT BE ISSUED, #45 Proposed Order COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENAS) (Attorney Amy J. Longo added to party Securities and Exchange Commission(pty:pet))(Longo, Amy)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. John Mark Marino et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Securities and Exchange Commission
Represented By: Christopher Anthony Nowlin
Represented By: Amy J. Longo
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: John Mark Marino
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: Jason 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 ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?