Securities and Exchange Commission v. Reifler et al, No. 2:2020cv00511 - Document 57 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 55 Motion to Extend Time. Discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 6/26/2023. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 5/23/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Reifler et al Doc. 57 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CHRISTOPHER E. MARTIN (AZ Bar No. 018486) admitted pro hac vice Terry R. Miller (CO Bar No. 18703) admitted pro hac vice Emails: martinc@sec.gov millerte@sec.gov 1961 Stout Street, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80294 Telephone: (303) 844-1000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 12 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 vs. BRADLEY C. REIFLER, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA SEC’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE A SCHEDULING ORDER and FOREFRONT PARTNERS, LLC FOREFRONT CAPITAL SERVICES, LLC, and PORT ROYAL-NCM, LLC, Judge Cristina D. Silva Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts Relief Defendants. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) hereby submits its Motion to Extend Deadline to File a Scheduling Order (“Motion”). The SEC is 26 requesting that the Court extend the current deadline of May 26, 2023 to file a 27 Scheduling Order to June 26, 2023. In further support, the SEC states: 28 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 55 Filed 05/23/23 05/17/23 Page 2 of 8 6 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. C. Reifler and Relief Defendants Forefront Partners, LLC, Forefront Capital Services, LLC, and Port Royal-NCM, LLC (collectively, “Defendant and Relief Defendants” and collectively with the SEC, the “Parties”). See Ecf No. 1. 2. 8 9 10 11 In March 2020, the SEC brought this action against Defendant Bradley After Defendant and Relief Defendants answered the SEC’s Complaint, in February 2021, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed an unopposed motion to Intervene and to Stay Proceedings (“Motion to Stay”). See Ecf 12 No. 39. On February 24, 2021, the Court granted the Motion to Stay and, among 13 other things, stayed this proceeding until resolution of the criminal case, including all 14 15 appeals, or until further order of this Court.1 3. 16 17 18 19 During May 2022, Mr. Reifler reached a plea agreement with DOJ to resolve the criminal litigation. During November 2022, the criminal court entered a final judgment against Mr. Reifler and sentenced him to a prison term of five years, 20 three years supervised release, and ordered him to pay $20,322,220 in restitution. Mr. 21 Reifler reported to prison during January 2023 and is presently incarcerated in a 22 23 federal correctional institution located in Otisville, New York. 3. 24 After the Court lifted the stay and requested a Joint Status Report, the 25 26 27 28 While this case was stayed, it was reassigned to the Honorable Judge Cristina D. Silva for all further proceedings. See Ecf. No. 43. 1 2 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 55 Filed 05/23/23 05/17/23 Page 3 of 8 6 1 2 3 4 Parties filed the Joint Status Report. See Ecf No. 45. After receiving it, the Court ordered the Parties to file a Second Joint Status Report by the end of March 2023. See Ecf No. 46. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4. The day before the Second Joint Status Report was due, counsel representing Reifler and Relief Defendants filed a Motion to Withdraw. See Ecf No. 47. 5. On March 31, 2023, the Parties filed the Second Status Report and requested that the Court allow them three weeks from when the Motion to Withdraw 12 is ruled upon to confer and jointly file a new scheduling order and the SEC requested 13 that if the parties are unable to timely file a proposed joint scheduling order, the SEC 14 15 may file its own proposed scheduling order. See Ecf No. 48. On April 7, 2023, the 16 Court issued a Minute Order, which granted both requests and indicated that the 17 Magistrate Judge would rule on the Motion to Withdraw. See Ecf No. 46. 18 19 6. On May 5, 2023, the Magistrate Judge granted defense counsel’s Motion 20 to Withdraw and ordered Mr. Reifler and the Relief Defendants to file a notice with 21 the Court on or before June 5, 2023 regarding whether: (a) Mr. Reifler will retain new 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 counsel or proceed pro se; and (b) the Relief Defendants will retain new counsel. See Ecf No. 54. 7. Based on the April 7th Minute Order and the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on the Motion to Withdraw, the present deadline to file a Scheduling Report is May 26, 2023. 3 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 55 Filed 05/23/23 05/17/23 Page 4 of 8 6 LEGAL MEMORANDUM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8. current deadline of May 26, 2023 to file a Scheduling Order to June 26, 2023, which is three weeks after the June 5, 2023 deadline for Mr. Reifler and the Relief Defendants to inform the Court whether new defense counsel will represent some or all of them. 9 10 11 For several reasons, the SEC is requesting that the Court extend the 9. First, the Court should extend the May 26th deadline until after Mr. Reifler and the Relief Defendants inform the Court whether new defense counsel will 12 represent them. The time necessary for discovery will depend on whether the Relief 13 Defendants (who are entities that Mr. Reifler cannot represent) 2 retain new defense 14 15 counsel and remain in the case. If the Relief Defendants are unrepresented and 16 default, the Parties will need less time for discovery. Therefore, it is a more efficient 17 use of party and judicial resources for the Court to consider the new scheduling order 18 19 after it is known whether the Relief Defendants will remain in this litigation. 10. 20 21 22 23 Second, if Mr. Reifler or the Relief Defendants do retain new counsel, any proposed Scheduling Order agreed upon would likely need to be revised and resubmitted to accommodate new defense counsel’s schedule. Thus, it is a more 24 efficient use of party and judicial resources for the Court to consider the new 25 scheduling order after the SEC knows whether it needs to take into account defense 26 27 28 As properly found by the Magistrate Judge “[b]ecause they are corporations, [the Relief Defendants] must be represented by counsel.” (Ecf No. 54 at 1-2, citations omitted). 2 4 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 55 Filed 05/23/23 05/17/23 Page 5 of 8 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 counsel’s schedule. 11. Lastly, in an abundance of caution, the SEC prefers to confer with Mr. Reifler and the Relief Defendants (if needed) after the SEC knows whether new defense counsel will represent Mr. Reifler or the Relief Defendants. Simply stated, SEC counsel would prefer to not communicate with Mr. Reifler or the Relief Defendants regarding this litigation until the SEC knows whether new defense counsel will represent some or all of them. 10 11 12 13 14 15 NO CONFERRAL 12. Due to the SEC’s present inability to confer with Mr. Reifler (either individually or on behalf of the Relief Defendants) in a timely fashion (because he is incarcerated and the SEC currently does not have a way to communicate with him via 16 electronic communications and the SEC’s request to speak to Mr. Reifler by 17 telephone has not been acted upon) the SEC has not conferred with Mr. Reifler prior 18 19 to filing this Motion. However, we do not believe that Mr. Reifler or the Relief 20 Defendants would be prejudiced if the Court granted the SEC’s requested relief, since 21 the relief would simply give additional time for Mr. Reifler and the Relief Defendants 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to confer with the SEC and jointly file a new proposed scheduling order. In conclusion, for good cause shown and not for the purpose of delay, the Court should extend the current deadline to file a Scheduling Order to on or before June 26, 2023. A proposed Order is submitted herewith. 5 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 55 Filed 05/23/23 05/17/23 Page 6 of 8 6 1 2 Dated: May 17, 2023 3 4 5 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7 8 9 10 /s/ Christopher E. Martin Christopher E. Martin Terry R. Miller Attorneys for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 961 Stout Street, Suite 1700 Denver, Colorado 80294 Telephone: (303) 844-1106 I certify that on May 17, 2023, I caused the foregoing document to be electronically filed with the Court using the ECF system, which will send notification 11 of such filing to any ECF-registered counsel. In addition, on May 17, 2023, the 12 forgoing document was served on Mr. Riefler and the Relief Defendants via the mail 13 14 15 16 17 18 to the following address: Bradley Carl Reifler – Register No. 20251-509 FCI Otisville Federal Correctional Institution Satellite Camp P.O. Box 1000 Otisville, NY 10963 19 /s/ Christopher E. Martin Christopher E. Martin 20 21 Attorney for Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 Filed 05/23/23 Page 7 of 8 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 6 Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 vs. BRADLEY C. REIFLER, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA [proposed] ORDER RE: SEC’S MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO FILE A SCHEDULING ORDER and FOREFRONT PARTNERS, LLC FOREFRONT CAPITAL SERVICES, LLC, and PORT ROYAL-NCM, LLC, Relief Defendants. THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Securities and Exchange 18 Commission’s (“SEC”) Motion to Extend Deadline to File a Scheduling Order 19 (“Motion”) [Dkt. No. 55]. Based on a full review of the record of this case, the 20 21 22 23 24 25 Motion is GRANTED: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties must confer and jointly file a new scheduling order in accordance with the Local Rules by no later than June 26, 2023. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the parties are unable to timely file a 26 proposed joint scheduling order, the SEC may files its own proposed scheduling 27 order for consideration and include therein the reasons why the parties were unable to 28 Case 2:20-cv-00511-CDS-DJA Document 57 Filed 05/23/23 Page 8 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 submit a joint proposed schedule. DATED: May May23, __2023. 2023 BY THE COURT: ___________________________________ _________________________________ DANIEL J. ALBREGTS Honorable JudgeJUDGE Cristina D. Silva UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
