Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01288/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-01288-6/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES MICHAEL MURRAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-01288-EMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO STAY CIVIL 

PROCEEDINGS PENDING CRIMINAL 

CASE

Docket No. 114

Defendant James Michael Murray has moved to stay proceedings in this case pending 

resolution of his related criminal appeal in No. CR-12-0278 EMC. A hearing was held on Mr. 

Murray‟s motion on September 22, 2016. This order memorializes the oral rulings made by the 

Court and provides further analysis as necessary.

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995), provides the relevant 

framework for the Court in deciding whether to grant or deny Mr. Murray‟s stay motion. In 

Keating, the Ninth Circuit stated as follows:

The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil 

proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. “In the 

absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, 

[simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are 

unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” “Nevertheless, a court 

may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings . . . „when the 

interests of justice seem[] to require such action.‟”

The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a 

parallel criminal proceeding should be made “in light of the 

particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the 

case.” This means the decisionmaker should consider “the extent to 

which the defendant‟s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” In 

addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following 

factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously 

Case 3:12-cv-01288-EMC Document 131 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential 

prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular 

aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the 

convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the 

efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not 

parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the 

pending civil and criminal litigation. 

Id. at 324-25. “Where trial in the parallel criminal proceeding has concluded, and a conviction is 

being challenged on appeal, courts are generally more reluctant to stay parallel civil proceedings.” 

Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-cv-689-MMA-DHB, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174773, at *5 (S.D. 

Cal. Dec. 7, 2012) (noting, inter alia, that “„[t]he appeal process is an uncertain, potentially longranging, process‟”); see also Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1214-15 (8th 

Cir. 1973) (indicating that there is not necessarily a need to halt the civil proceedings where the 

criminal trial has already concluded).

Having taken into account, inter alia, the Keating factors, the Court, in the exercise of its 

discretion, concludes that a stay is not warranted. The criminal trial against Mr. Murray has 

already been completed. It is unlikely that Mr. Murray‟s Fifth Amendment rights would be 

affected by allowing this civil case to proceed pending the criminal appeal, especially as Mr. 

Murray actually provided testimony during the criminal trial and thus already waived his Fifth 

Amendment rights therein. Moreover, the SEC is simply asking at this point to litigate its 

summary judgment motion, which is limited to the issue of whether the criminal judgment has a 

collateral estoppel effect in this case. Mr. Murray‟s testimony is not likely needed. Finally, 

continued delay of this case – which has been pending since 2012 – would be prejudicial to the 

SEC. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Mr. Murray‟s motion. In so ruling, however, the Court 

leaves open the possibility that, should the SEC prevail on its summary judgment motion, there 

may be reason to delay enforcement of the summary judgment order (i.e., disbursement of funds)

pending the criminal appeal.

The Court also modifies the briefing and hearing schedule for the SEC‟s summary 

judgment motion. Mr. Murray‟s opposition brief shall be filed and served by October 6, 2016. 

The SEC‟s reply brief shall be filed and served by October 20, 2016. The hearing on the SEC‟s 

Case 3:12-cv-01288-EMC Document 131 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

motion for summary judgment shall be held on November 3, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Finally, the Court modifies the briefing schedule for the Windsors‟ motion for fair 

distribution of funds, which can be found at Docket No. 395 in the criminal case (No. CR-12-0278 

EMC). Mr. Murray may now have until October 20, 2016, to file a brief regarding the Windsors‟

request for relief. The SEC is ordered to give the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Windsors 

notice of this modification.

This order disposes of Docket No. 114.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01288-EMC Document 131 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 3