Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00665-128/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANTHONY VASSALLO, KENNETH 

KENITZER, and EQUITY 

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND 

TRAINING, INC., 

Defendants. 

No. CIV. S-09-0665 LKK/DAD 

ORDER 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has 

filed an un-opposed motion for final judgment against defendant 

Kenneth Kenitzer (ECF No. 502). The motion requests, among other 

things, a final order assessing a penalty against Kenitzer 

pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act (“Advisers Act”), 15 

U.S.C. § 80b-9(e). See ECF No. 502 at 10. The accompanying 

proposed final judgment includes, among other things, sections 

permanently enjoining Kenitzer from violating the Advisers Act 

and assessing a penalty thereunder, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 

80b-6(2), 80b-6(4), and 80b-9(e). See ECF Nos. 502 at 3, and 

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 512 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 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 

2 

502-2 at ¶¶ III, IV & VI. 

The Complaint (ECF No. 1), however, does not allege that 

Kenitzer violated any provision of the Advisers Act, nor that he 

aided or abetted any such violation.1 Accordingly, the 

Commission shall file, within 14 days of this order, either 

(1) an amended proposed order that omits the Advisers Act 

sections, or (2) a supplemental memorandum of no more than 10 

pages, setting forth this court’s authority to assess the 

requested Advisers Act penalty and injunctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 1, 2014. 

 

1

 The Fourth Claim for Relief asserts that defendant Anthony 

Vassallo acted as an investment adviser, and engaged in conduct 

prohibited by the Advisers Act, but then concludes that “By 

reason of the foregoing, Kenitzer has violated” the Advisers Act. 

Complaint ¶¶ 43-46. This appears to be a typographical error, 

with “Kenitzer” appearing instead of “Vassallo.” The Fourth 

Claim contains no allegation that Kenitzer acted as an investment 

adviser, nor that he engaged in conduct prohibited by the 

Advisers Act. 

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 512 Filed 07/03/14 Page 2 of 2