Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00226/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00226-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

– 1 –

15cv226

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-00226-BAS-DHB

ORDER:

(1)DENYING DEFENDANT 

JACOB KEITH COOPER’S 

MOTION TO STAY [ECF 

No. 173];

(2)GRANTING SEC’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT [ECF. No. 

151];

AND

(3)ENTERING FINAL 

JUDGMENT OF 

PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AGAINST 

DEFENDANT JACOB 

KEITH COOPER

v.

TOTAL WEALTH 

MANAGEMENT, INC., and JACOB 

KEITH COOPER,

Defendants.

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 8
– 2 –

15cv226

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

Before the Court is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or 

“Commission”) motion for summary judgment against Defendant Jacob Keith 

Cooper. (ECF No. 151.) The SEC seeks summary judgment that Mr. Cooper violated 

Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers 

Act”), and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. The SEC seeks a permanent injunction against 

Mr. Cooper, and an order requiring him to pay disgorgement with prejudgment 

interest and civil penalties. Mr. Cooper previously consented to the entry of a 

preliminary injunction against him in this action, prohibiting violations of Sections 

206(1), (2), and (4) of the Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder. Mr. Cooper 

has not opposed the instant motion. However, he has filed a motion to stay these 

proceedings pending the outcome of a state criminal case against him initiated in 

March 2017. (ECF No. 173.)1 Both the SEC and the Receiver have filed oppositions 

to Mr. Cooper’s motion. (ECF Nos. 176, 177.)

DISCUSSION

I. MOTION TO STAY2

Whether to grant a motion to stay is in the discretion of the district court and 

should be made “in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests 

involved in the case.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ins. Corp., v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). The court should 

consider: 

(1) “the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the 

 

1 Mr. Cooper has requested oral argument on his motion to stay. (ECF 

No. 173.) The Court finds that this motion can be decided on the paper submissions 

and declines to hold oral argument. Civ. R. 7.1(d)(1).

2 Mr. Cooper’s motion to stay (ECF No. 173) failed to specify a hearing 

date in contravention of the Local Rules. Civ R. 7.1(b), (e). Moreover, Mr. Cooper 

failed to comply with this Chamber’s Standing Order as it pertains to noticed 

motions. See Standing Order, Section 4. Nevertheless, the Court will rule on the 

substance of Mr. Cooper’s motion to stay.

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 8
– 3 –

15cv226

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

litigation” and any possible prejudice from the delay;

(2) the burden on the defendant if the case proceeds;

(3) the convenience of the court 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.”

Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902−03.

In the context of these factors, the Court believes that a stay is not appropriate

in this case. This case has been pending for two and a half years. It is set for trial in 

three months. Plaintiffs have filed their Motion for Summary Judgment 

demonstrating that there remains no triable issue of fact for trial. Mr. Cooper has 

failed to file an opposition despite an extension given by the Court. In fact, as the 

SEC observes, Mr. Cooper has never contested the substance of the SEC’s allegations 

at any stage in this case. (ECF No. 176 at 9.) Since there appears to be no triable 

issue of fact, Mr. Cooper will not be forced to assert his Fifth Amendment rights at 

trial. He has additionally already given his deposition in this case, and much of his 

deposition testimony forms the basis for the Motion for Summary Judgment. 

Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903. Any assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights at this late 

date will only have a minimal impact on this litigation. 

Nor would staying this case save the Court judicial resources. The case is 

ready for a decision on summary judgment. The Court had prepared its summary 

judgment order granting the motion when this last-minute Motion to Stay was filed. 

At this point, staying the case would not conserve additional judicial resources. 

Moreover, the public has an interest in the expeditious litigation of this case, which 

would be frustrated by further delay. See Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 

F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1995).

Furthermore, and most importantly, the Altus Fund investors have been 

waiting for the resolution of this case so that their missing funds can be recouped.

These investors, as well as the SEC, which has devoted time preparing for trial and 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 8
– 4 –

15cv226

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

the Motion for Summary Judgment, would be substantially prejudiced if the case 

were stayed. In contrast, the only party that would benefit from the stay is Mr. 

Cooper, who could continue to delay paying back the investors he owes. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper’s Motion to 

Stay. (ECF No. 173.) 

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A district court shall grant summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute 

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it might affect the outcome of the suit 

under the governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a 

reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

“[A] motion for summary judgment may not be granted based on a failure to 

file an opposition to the motion[.]” Heinemann v. Satterberg, 731 F.3d 914, 917 (9th 

Cir. 2013). Even where the party to whom the motion for summary judgment is 

directed fails to respond, the moving party still has the burden to demonstrate the 

absence of any material fact. Cristobal v. Siegel, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494−95 (9th Cir. 

1994). The court may, however, grant an unopposed motion for summary judgment 

if the motion and supporting materials show there is no issue of material fact, and the 

movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See White by White v. 

Pierce Cty., 797 F.2d 812, 814−15 (9th Cir. 1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3).

The SEC filed and served its motion for summary judgment on June 9, 2017.

(ECF No. 151.) Mr. Cooper’s opposition brief was due on July 10, 2017, and as of 

August 25, 2017, he has not responded. The Commission represents that it reached 

out to Mr. Cooper’s current counsel of record, and to other counsel who have assisted 

Mr. Cooper at other points throughout this case, to no avail. (ECF No. 152.)

Having reviewed the SEC’s motion for summary judgment, and having 

carefully considered the attached declarations, deposition testimony, and other 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 8
– 5 –

15cv226

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

supporting materials, the Court concludes the SEC has met its burden to demonstrate 

the absence of any material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS summary judgment on the SEC’s claims that Mr. 

Cooper violated Sections 206(1), (2), and (4) of the Advisers Act, and Rule 206(4)-

(8) thereunder.

FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER

Having granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment, the Court enters 

FINAL JUDGMENT as follows:

I.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the SEC’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper is 

GRANTED. (ECF No. 151.)

II.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant 

Jacob Keith Cooper is permanently enjoined from, directly or indirectly, by the use 

of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate 

commerce or by the use of the mails: 

A. with scienter, employing devices, schemes or artifices to defraud clients 

or prospective clients; or

B. engaging in transactions, practices, or courses of business which 

operated as a fraud or deceit upon clients or prospective clients; 

in violation of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) 

and (2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, as 

provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal 

service or otherwise: (a) Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper’s officers, agents, servants, 

employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in active concert or participation with 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 8
– 6 –

15cv226

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

Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper or with anyone described in (a).

III.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant 

Jacob Keith Cooper is permanently enjoined from, directly or indirectly, while acting 

as an investment adviser to a pooled investment vehicle, by the use of any means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, 

A. making untrue statements of a material fact or omitting to state a 

material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light 

of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, to 

any investor or prospective investor in the pooled investment vehicle; or

B. engaging in acts, practices, or courses of business that are fraudulent, 

deceptive, or manipulative with respect to any investor or prospective 

investor in the pooled investment vehicle;

in violation of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4), and Rule 

206(4)-8 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, as 

provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2), the foregoing paragraph also 

binds the following who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal 

service or otherwise: (a) Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper’s officers, agents, servants, 

employees, and attorneys; and (b) other persons in active concert or participation with 

Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper or with anyone described in (a). 

IV.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant 

Jacob Keith Cooper is liable for disgorgement of $262,787 (total disgorgement of 

$412,787 less a credit of $150,000 for funds paid), representing profits gained as a 

result of the conduct alleged in the Complaint. Mr. Cooper is also liable for 

prejudgment interest on his net disgorgement obligation of $262,787 in the amount 

of $21,567, for a total disgorgement of $284,354. Mr. Cooper shall also pay a civil 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 8
– 7 –

15cv226

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

penalty in the amount of $300,000 pursuant to Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 80b-(9)(e). Defendant shall satisfy this obligation by paying $284,354 plus 

the amount of the civil penalty set forth above (i.e., $300,000) to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission within 14 days after entry of this Final Judgment. The total 

amount due to the Commission within 14 days after entry of this Final Judgment is 

$584,354. 

Defendant may transmit payment electronically to the SEC, which will provide 

detailed ACH transfer/Fedwire instructions upon request. Payment may also be made 

directly from a bank account via Pay.gov through the SEC website at 

http://www.sec.gov/about/offices/ofm.htm. Defendant may also pay by certified 

check, bank cashier’s check, or United States postal money order payable to the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, which shall be delivered or mailed to: 

Enterprise Services Center

Accounts Receivable Branch

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard

Oklahoma City, OK 73169

and shall be accompanied by a letter identifying the case title, civil action number, 

and the name of this Court; Defendant Jacob Keith Cooper as a defendant in this 

action; and specifying that payment is made pursuant to this Final Judgment. 

Defendant shall simultaneously transmit photocopies of evidence of payment 

and case identifying information to the SEC’s counsel in this action. By making this 

payment, Defendant relinquishes all legal and equitable right, title, and interest in 

such funds and no part of the funds shall be returned to the Defendant.

The SEC shall hold the funds (collectively, the “Fund”) and may transfer them 

to the receiver or propose a plan to distribute the Fund subject to the Court’s approval.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the administration of any distribution of the 

Fund. If the SEC staff determines that the Fund will not be distributed, the SEC shall 

send the funds paid pursuant to this Final Judgment to the United States Treasury.

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 8
– 8 –

15cv226

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

The SEC may enforce the Court’s judgment for disgorgement and prejudgment 

interest by moving for civil contempt (and/or through other collection procedures 

authorized by law) at any time after 14 days following entry of this Final Judgment. 

Defendant shall pay post judgment interest on any delinquent amounts pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1961.

V.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, solely for 

the purposes of exceptions to discharge set forth in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy 

Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523, any debt for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty 

or other amounts due by Defendant under this Final Judgment or any other judgment, 

order, consent order, decree, or settlement agreement entered in connection with this 

proceeding, is a debt for the violation by Defendant of the federal securities laws or 

any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set forth in Section 523(a)(19) of 

the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19).

VI.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Court 

shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this 

Final Judgment.

VII.

There being no reason for delay, pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, the Clerk is ordered to enter this Final Judgment forthwith and 

without further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 185 Filed 09/27/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 8