Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00344/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00344-35/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

BIC REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., 

et al.,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-344-LJO-JLT

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE MOTION TO INTERVENE 

(Doc. 91)

Valley Mortgage Investments, Inc. (“VMI”) moves to intervene in this Securities and Exchange 

Commission (“SEC”) enforcement action. Doc. 91. The SEC, the Court-appointed Receiver, and 

Defendants opposed. Docs. 96-98. After the matter was fully briefed, the Court ordered supplemental 

briefing because the Court found it was unable to rule on the then-current record. See Doc. 110 at 3. The 

Court therefore requested further information and argument from the parties on whether VMI should be 

permitted to intervene. See id. The Court also indicated to the parties that it would consider a stipulation 

by the parties that would obviate the need for the Court to rule on VMI’s motion. See id. at 3-4. 

Both parties timely submitted supplemental briefs. See Docs. 124, 139. The parties indicate that 

they have met and conferred and appear to have resolved the bulk of their disputes, which should 

obviate the need for the Court to rule on VMI’s motion to intervene. See Doc. 124 at 7-8; Doc. 139 at 1. 

It appears the only outstanding issue on which the parties cannot come to an agreement is whether VMI 

is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs associated with its motion to intervene. See id.; Doc. 139 at 4. 

In its supplemental brief, VMI states that “the Receiver is open to a stipulation that includes 

some mechanism for VMI to include attorney’s fees in its beneficiary demands,” but “the SEC has 

Case 1:16-cv-00344-DAD-JLT Document 142 Filed 12/21/16 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

2

expressed concern about any stipulated structure that reimburses VMI’s fees without advance Court 

approval of the concept.” Doc. 139 at 2. VMI indicates that if the Court were to approve the parties’ 

proposed stipulation, then they would “be able to finalize a stipulation that resolves the need for VMI to 

intervene.” Id. at 2. VMI therefore “now hopes to obtain the Court’s thoughts on the inclusion of 

attorney’s fees in beneficiary demands to the parties can finalize their stipulation and resolve the issues 

presented by VMI’s motion.” Id. at 3.

The Court cannot issue advisory opinions. See generally Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 96 (1968) 

(“[I]t is quite clear that the oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the 

federal courts will not give advisory opinions.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). VMI’s request 

is therefore DENIED.

The parties shall inform the Court on or before January 13, 2017, whether they request a ruling 

on VMI’s motion to intervene or whether they have reached an agreement to resolve the matter 

informally. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00344-DAD-JLT Document 142 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 2