Securities and Exchange Commission v. Retail Pro, Inc et al
| Securities and Exchange Commission |
| Retail Pro, Inc, Barry M. Schechter, Ran H. Furman and Harvey Braun |
| 3:2008cv01620 |
| September 4, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Securities/Commodities Office |
| San Diego |
| Ruben B. Brooks |
| William Q. Hayes |
| Defendant |
| 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
184
ORDER: The (Doc. 176 ) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law is denied. The (Doc. 177 ) Motion for New Trial is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 9/27/2011. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
179
ORDER denying Doc. 175 Motion to Stay of Execution of Judgment. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 8/11/2011. (aef)
|
|
Filing
172
ORDER: The (Doc. 143 ) Motion for Directed Verdict is denied. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 6/23/2011. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
131
ORDER: The (Doc. 95 ) Motion in Limine by Plaintiff for an Order Specifying that Facts Be Treated as Established and Excluding Contradictory Evidence or Testimony is denied. The (Doc. 98 ) Motion in Limine by Defendant to Exclude Evidence Regarding this Court's Prior Summary Judgment Order is granted. The (Doc. 96 ) Motion in Limine by Plaintiff to Exclude Testimony and Expert Report by Defendant's Expert, Jerry Arnold, is denied without prejudice as to Arnold's testimony and g ranted as to Arnold's report. The (Doc. 97 ) Motion in Limine by Defendant to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony by Plaintiff's Expert Peter Salomon is denied without prejudice. The (Doc. 99 ) Motion in Limine by Defendant to Exclude Evidence of Consent Decrees and Judgments Entered into Between the Plaintiff and Defendants Retail Pro, Inc., Barry M. Schechter and Harvey Braun in Settlement of this Action is granted. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 2/10/2011. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
58
ORDER: The (Doc. 50 ) Motion for Reconsideration is denied. All remaining dates set in the 11/18/2009 Order (Doc. 47 at 45-46) are reset. Memoranda of contentions of fact and law in compliance with Local Rule 16.1(f)(2) are due on or before 6/11/2010. The proposed final pretrial conference order is due on or before 7/2/2010. The Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on 7/9/2010 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 4. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 4/9/2010. (mdc)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER: The Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment against Furman (Doc. 33 ) is granted in part and denied in part. The Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to the followin g claims against Furman: Section 13(b)(5), Rule 13b2-1, and Rule 13b2-2. The Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to the following claims against Furman: Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, Section 20(e), and Rule 13a-14. All remaining dates in the Case Management Conference Order (Doc. 22 ) are reset. The proposed final pretrial conference order is due before 1/25/2010. The Final Pretrial Conference shall be held on 2/1/2010 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 11/18/2009. (mdc) (jrl).
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER postponing Settlement Conference to 5/15/2009 01:30 PM in Courtroom B before Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks 26 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks on 4/1/09. (tkl) (jrl).
|
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 Southern 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.
