Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00551/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00551-2/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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JOHN GRAY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-00551-JSW 

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR 

HEARING 

Re: Dkt. No. 27 

 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE 

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON July 

22, 2016, AT 9:00 a.m.: 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties 

reargue matters addressed in those briefs. The parties shall not file written responses to this 

Notice of Questions for hearing. If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities not cited in their 

briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities 

reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies of those authorities available at the 

hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the 

citations to the authorities only, with pin cites but without argument or additional briefing. Cf. 

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to 

explain their reliance on such authority. 

The Court does not wish to hear further argument on the issue of whether this controversy 

is ripe or whether the motion was made within a reasonable time. 

1. Does the SEC take the position that, since this was a Consent Judgment, the Court 

has no power to modify the judgment to reduce the amount of civil penalties 

Case 4:15-cv-00551-JSW Document 35 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Da

2. 

3. 

IT IS S

ated: July 20

imposed? 

Is it the SEC

not amend t

is it possible

Judgment to

What is the 

registry unti

SO ORDER

0, 2016 

C’s position 

the judgment

e that the SE

o reduce the 

SEC’s posit

il the issue o

RED. 

2

that, whethe

t in this case

EC would co

civil penalty

tion on puttin

of restitution

___

JEF

Un

er or not the 

e? That is, if

onsider a stip

y imposed?

ng the dispu

n is resolved?

__________

FFREY S. W

nited States D

Court order

f the Court w

pulated modi

uted amount 

?

___________

WHITE 

District Judg

rs restitution

were to order

ification to t

in escrow or

__________

ge 

, it should 

r restitution,

he Consent 

r the Court’s

________ 

,

s

Case 4:15-cv-00551-JSW Document 35 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2