Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02144/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02144-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1348 Banking association as party

---

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET WILLETT,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ALEX PROCOPIO, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17cv2144-LAB (JMA)

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

SEAL; AND (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 

TRO, RECEIVER, AND ASSET FREEZE

Margaret Willett sued Cuba Beverage Company’s executives and attorneys for 

securities fraud after she invested $150,000 in stock she says is now worthless. Willet 

alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pump-and-dump scheme: pumping up Cuba 

Beverage’s stock price by paying penny stock reviewers to make misleading statements to 

encourage investment, then dumping their shares once the stock reached a certain price.

Two defendants filed a motion to dismiss, one answered, and the other hasn’t appeared or 

responded. Willet filed an ex parte motion to seal her filings requesting a TRO, an asset 

freeze, and appointment of a temporary receiver.

Willet’s argument for sealing turns on the same reason for requesting ex parte relief: 

“If Defendants become aware of this enforcement action . . . there is a substantial risk that 

Defendants will conceal or dissipate assets or destroy documents, frustrating the Court’s 

ability to provide restitution to the victims of Defendant’s unlawful investment scheme.” 

(Motion to Seal at 2.) But Willet publicly filed this action over three months ago, so her notice 

Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-LL Document 25 Filed 01/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

concern doesn’t make sense. More to the point: she’s offered no evidence that Defendants 

are likely to conceal assets or destroy evidence. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

provide sanctions for that conduct. Willet hasn’t demonstrated why the Rules aren’t a 

sufficient deterrent. In short, she hasn’t met her burden to show good cause for sealing, and

she hasn’t offered any specific facts clearly showing immediate and irreparable damage 

requires issuing a TRO or any of the other relief she seeks. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); see In re 

Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2012). 

Willet’s ex parte requests to seal the record, issue a TRO, appoint a receiver, and

freeze assets are denied. Her request to file documents without complying with the Court’s 

Standing Order is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2018

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02144-LAB-LL Document 25 Filed 01/25/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2