Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00665-104/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 July 7, 2011, Frank and Heidi Sanzari, EIMT investors, sent

a letter to the court complaining about the conduct of the Receiver

in the above-captioned case. It was docketed as Doc. No. 413. The

court ordered the Receiver to respond to the Sanzaris’ letter.

(Doc. No. 414). On July 27, 2011, the Receiver filed a response to

the letter. On August 16, 2011, Frank Sanzari emailed a response

to the Receiver’s letter to the lkk-pleadings@caed.uscourts.gov

email address. The court contacted Mr. Sanzari to determine whether

he has also mailed a hard copy version of his response to the

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 419 Filed 08/25/11 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

 If the court is able to locate the letter, it will instruct 1

the Clerk of Court to file the letter in this case.

 The court notes that it has held numerous hearings in this 2

case, including five concerning the Receiver’s reports and fee

petitions, in which all EIMT investors received notice by mail and

not a single objection has been filed nor have any investors

appeared at these hearings. The court has held hearings on all of

the unopposed requests for approval of reports and fee petitions

for the specific purpose of allowing investors or other interested

parties to make objections. 

2

court. He indicated that he has mailed such a version, but the

court has yet to receive it. It is possible that the mailed version

did not include the case number on it and, thus, was not directed

to this court.1

The court does not respond to informal communications. For

this reason, the court instructs the Sanzaris to, if they so

choose, file either a formal motion to the court in which they lay

out the relief they seek and the reasons why the court should grant

such relief or file formal objections to the Receiver’s next fee

petition and report in which they lay out the basis for their

objections and what actions they believe the court should take

because of their objections.2

The Clerk of Court is instructed to serve this letter upon the

Frank and Heidi Sanzari at 3529 Villero Court, Pleasanton, CA

94566.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 24, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-00665-JAM-KJN Document 419 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 2