Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00344/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00344-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION and DANIEL R. 

NASE, individually and d/b/a 

BAKERSFIELD INVESTMENT 

CLUB,

Defendants,

BIC SOLO 401K TRUST and 

MARGARITA NASE,

Relief Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-344-LJO-JLT

ORDER ON STIPULATION TO 

ALLOW TRANSFER OF REAL 

PROPERTIES TO DEFENDANT BIC 

REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION BY DANIEL E. 

NASE AND OSCAR ARGUETA

Case 1:16-cv-00344-DAD-JLT Document 34 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 2
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

This matter is now before the Court on the Stipulation of Plaintiff Securities 

and Exchange Commission, Oscar Argueta, Daniel E. Nase, and Defendants Daniel 

R. Nase and BIC Real Estate Development Corporation to allow the transfer, by 

Oscar Argueta to Defendant BIC Real Estate Development Corporation, of real 

property located at 2501 Lake St Bakersfield, CA 93306; and to allow the transfer, by 

Daniel E. Nase to Defendant BIC Real Estate Development Corporation, of real

property located at:

137 Dunlap St Bakersfield, CA 93309

409 Villa St Bakersfield, CA 93307

533 Stephens Dr Bakersfield, CA 93304

1504 Flower St Bakersfield, CA 93305

137 N Stine Rd Bakersfield, CA 93309.

For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the stipulation is granted and that Oscar Argueta and 

Daniel E. Nase forthwith shall1transfer forthwith the properties listed above to 

Defendant BIC Real Estate Development Corporation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

The parties’ proposed language—“may transfer”—does not comport with the 

parties’ stipulation as discussed at the April 1, 2016 hearing.

Case 1:16-cv-00344-DAD-JLT Document 34 Filed 04/01/16 Page 2 of 2