Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00665-89/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

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

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

ANTHONY VASSALLO, KENNETH

KENITZER, and EQUITY 

INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AND

TRAINING, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

On October 25, 2010, the court heard the Receiver’s motion to

disgorge a vehicle from real party in interest Concettina Ferentz

(“Ferentz”). At the hearing, the court considered allowing Ferentz

to seek limited discovery from the Receiver. Mainly, the court

asked counsel for Ferentz whether five interrogatory requests would

adequately address his client’s concerns. The court also asked

counsel for the Receiver several questions concerning the arguments

raised in Ferentz’s opposition to the motion to disgorge. The court

did not make any rulings from the bench.

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 368 Filed 11/03/10 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Upon further reflection, on October 26, 2010, the court

granted the Receiver’s motion and ordered Ferentz to disgorge the

vehicle within twenty days. Specifically, the court found that

there was significant evidence that Ferentz was not acting in good

faith, but rather attempting to delay disgorgement of the vehicle.

Nonetheless, the court reasoned that even if Ferentz was acting in

good faith, she has not demonstrated good cause for discovery.

On November 1, 2010, Ferentz filed an ex parte request for

clarification or reconsideration of this court’s October 26, 2010

order. Specifically, counsel for Ferentz testified that it was his

understanding that the court intended to allow Ferentz to serve

five interrogatory requests upon the Receiver. He further argued

that he and Ferentz acted in good faith, and attempted to explain

the conduct discussed in the order. Ferentz did not raise any

arguments as to this court’s conclusion that even if Ferentz acted

in good faith, she has nonetheless failed to demonstrate good cause

for limited discovery.

To the extent that Ferentz is seeking clarification of this

court’s prior order, the court reiterates that it considered

several options at the hearing on the motion to disgorge.

Ultimately, it determined that Ferentz did not demonstrate good

cause for discovery, and ordered that Ferentz to disgorge the

vehicle within twenty days. Comments and questions raised at a

hearing are not orders of the court.

Ferentz also appears to be seeking reconsideration of the

court’s order. As discussed above, Ferentz has again failed to

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 368 Filed 11/03/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

demonstrate that she has good cause for limited discovery.

Accordingly, she has not demonstrated any grounds to reconsider the

order.

For the foregoing reasons, the court ORDERS that Ferentz’s ex

parte requests for clarification or reconsideration, ECF No. 367,

is DENIED. Ferentz shall disgorge the Land Rover to the Receiver

by November 15, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 2, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 368 Filed 11/03/10 Page 3 of 3