Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01386/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01386-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 

For the Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN V. BIVONA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 16-cv-01386-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

STIPULATION RE PRELIMINARY 

INJUNCTION 

Docket No. 59 

On April 22, 2016, Defendants John V. Bivona, Saddle River Advisors LLC, and SRA 

Management LLC, and Relief Defendants SRA I LLC, SRA II LLC, SRA III LLC, Felix 

Investments, LLC, Anne Bivona, Clear Sailing Group IV LLC, and Clear Sailing Group V LLC 

(collectively, “Stipulating Defendants”) stipulated to the entry of a preliminary injunction. See

Docket No. 59 (“Stipulation”). The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Plaintiff”) and the 

Stipulating Defendants agreed that the Stipulation does not include Defendant Frank Mazzola or 

Relief Defendant Michelle Mazzola (“the Mazzolas”). Stipulation at 2. 

The Stipulation would permit Plaintiff “to propound expedited document subpoenas on 

non-parties Fortuna Funds, Silverback Fund I, and Silverback Fund II.” See id. However, 

Plaintiff’s previous representations to this Court suggest that “the Silverback Funds” are entities 

owned and/or controlled by Defendant Frank Mazzola, not by any of the Stipulating Defendants. 

See Docket No. 1 (“Complaint”) at ¶¶ 74-77. These representations do not suggest that any of the 

Stipulating Defendants are entitled to agree to expedited discovery on behalf of the Silverback 

Funds. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall either (1) remove the Silverback Funds from the Stipulation, 

(2) file a brief statement explaining why it believes the Silverback Funds are bound by the 

Case 3:16-cv-01386-EMC Document 62 Filed 04/27/16 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 

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

Stipulation, or (3) obtain the signature of a person entitled to agree to expedited discovery on 

behalf of the Silverback Funds. 

Additionally, it is unclear which defendants in this action are represented by counsel from 

Shartsis Friese, LLP (“Counsel”). In the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for a 

Temporary Restraining Order, Counsel appeared to represent John Bivona, Anne Bivona, and 

Saddle River Advisors LLC. See Docket No. 25 at 1, 4. In the Stipulation, Counsel appears to 

represent these same defendants, see Stipulation at 1, and also specially appears on behalf of the 

remaining Stipulating Defendants, see id. at 3. Counsel has not filed a Notice of Appearance in 

this action. See L.R. 5-1(c)(2) (requiring a notice of appearance). Because the Stipulation 

suggests he is generally appearing as to at least some defendants, Counsel is instructed to file his 

Notice of Appearance by April 29, 2016, clarifying those defendants on whose behalf he generally 

appears and those on whose behalf he specially appears.1 

Finally, the Mazzolas, who did not stipulate to the preliminary injunction, were identified 

as having pro per status on March 24, 2016, see Docket No. 37 at 2, but were not identified as 

having this status on April 21, 2016, see Docket No. 58 at 2-3. If Counsel represents the 

Mazzolas, he will state as much in his Notice of Appearance and will file a brief statement 

explaining why the concurrent representation does not raise concerns about adverse interests. 

This Order disposes of Docket No. 59. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 27, 2016 

________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

 

1

 The Court is aware that a notice of special appearance is typically not required. See S.E.C. v. 

Wencke, 783 F.2d 829, 833 n.3 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting special appearances are not required to 

challenge jurisdiction). It is requested here for the purposes of clarity.

Case 3:16-cv-01386-EMC Document 62 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 2