Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00244/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00244-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0078m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

19cv244-GPC(RBB)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY GARRISON, an individual, and 

CHRISTINE GARRISON, an individual ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REGINALD BUDDY RINGGOLD, III

aka Rasool Abdul Rahim El, an 

individual, ROSEGOLD

INVESTMENTS, LLP, a Delaware

Partnership, and MASTER

INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., a

California Corporation,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv244-GPC(RBB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE VACATING 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST 

DEFENDANTS ROSEGOLD 

INVESTMENTS, LLP AND MASTER

INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.

On September 25, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for default 

judgment against Defendants Rosegold Investments, LLP (“Rosegold”) and Master 

Investment Group, Inc. (“MIG”) as to liability. (Dkt. No. 36.) Upon the Court’s review, 

it sua sponte vacates the default judgment entered against Rosegold and MIG. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 55(c) (court “may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b)”; Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b). 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00244-GPC-DEB Document 44 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv244-GPC(RBB)

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

Background

Plaintiff Tommy Garrison, who is over 65 years old, and his wife, Plaintiff 

Christine Garrison (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative first amended complaint 

for securities violations and financial elder abuse against Defendants Reginald Buddy 

Ringgold, III aka Rasool Abdul Rahim El, (“Ringgold”), Rosegold Investments LLP 

(“Rosegold”), and Master Investment Group, Inc. (“MIG”) (collectively “Defendants”). 

(Dkt. No. 17, FAC.) Plaintiffs allege securities violations pursuant to § 10(b) of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities Exchange 

Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; violations of California Corporation 

Code sections 25000 et seq. for unlawful business conduct as an “investment advisor” 

and “broker”; and financial elder abuse in violation of California Welfare & Institution 

Code sections 15610 et seq. by Tommy Garrison. (Id. ¶¶ 90-113.)

Ringgold, proceeding pro se, filed an answer. (Dkt. No. 18.) But default was 

entered on the FAC against Rosegold and MIG on August 30, 2019. (Dkt. No. 29.) 

Plaintiffs subsequently filed their motion for default judgment against Rosegold and 

MIG. (Dkt. No. 30.) Rosegold and MIG did not file an opposition. On September 25, 

2019, the Court granted the unopposed default judgment against Rosegold and MIG as to 

liability.

1

 (Dkt. No. 36.) 

Discussion

In the Ninth Circuit, a court may sua sponte vacate a final judgment or order for 

“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure (“Rule”) 60(b)(1). See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 

F.3d 347, 351-52 (9th Cir. 1999) (following Fourth and Fifth Circuits and holding that 

Rule 60(b) allows for a Court’s sua sponte review of a judgment). 

 

1 The Court denied Plaintiffs’ request for damages because they failed to prove up their damages. (Dkt. 

No. 36 at 8-9.) On October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs submitted supplemental documents to support their 

request for damages. (Dkt. No. 40.) 

Case 3:19-cv-00244-GPC-DEB Document 44 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv244-GPC(RBB)

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

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court must consider whether it is 

proper to enter judgment against some but not all Defendants. See Frow v. De La Vega, 

82 U.S. 552, 554 (1872). A default judgment on fewer than all defendants must comply 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which provides in relevant part: “the court 

may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or 

parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b). In Frow, the United States Supreme Court held that where one of 

several defendants who is alleged to be jointly liable defaults, judgment should not be 

entered against the defaulting defendant until the matter has been adjudicated in regard to 

all the defendants. Frow, 82 U.S. at 554. Later, the Ninth Circuit, following the 

Eleventh Circuit, extended the rule “to apply to defendants who are similarly situated, 

even if not jointly and severally liable.” In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d 520, 532 

(9th Cir. 2001). “Frow’s applicability turns not on labels such as ‘joint liability’ or ‘joint 

and several liability,’ but rather on the key question of whether under the theory of the 

complaint, liability of all the defendants must be uniform.” Shanghai Automation 

Instrument Co., Ltd. v. Kuei, 194 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 2001). The purpose 

of Frow was to avoid inconsistent adjudications as to liability. In re Uranium Antitrust 

Litig., 617 F.2d 1248, 1257 (7th Cir. 1980). 

Here, Defendant Ringgold, proceeding pro se, is alleged to be the founder and 

managing partner of Rosegold and MIG. (Dkt. No. 17, FAC ¶¶ 21. 22.) Moreover, the 

liability of all the defendants rests on the same course of conduct, and legal issues. 

Therefore, all Defendants are similarly situated and default judgment should not have 

been entered until adjudication of all issues. See In re First T.D. & Inv., Inc., 253 F.3d at 

532. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte vacates the order granting default judgment as 

to Defendants Rosegold Investments, LLP and Master Investment Group, Inc. and denies 

Case 3:19-cv-00244-GPC-DEB Document 44 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv244-GPC(RBB)

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

without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment until final adjudication of the 

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-00244-GPC-DEB Document 44 Filed 01/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4