UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-CV-81205-RAR

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP,

INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

/

DEFENDANTS JOSEPH LAFORTE AND LISA MCELHONE’S

MOTION TO VACATE OR STAY THE COURT’S ORDER AUTHORIZING 

THE RECEIVER’S SALE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ HAVERFORD HOME

Defendants, Joseph LaForte and Lisa McElhone (collectively the “Defendants”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel, respectfully request that the Court vacate or stay its Order

Authorizing the Receiver’s Sale of Real Property Located at 568 Ferndale Lane, Haverford, PA 

19041 (ECF 1604, the “Haverford Sale Order”) in order to allow the Defendants to file a Response 

in Opposition to the Receiver’s Motion seeking such relief (ECF 1602, the “Motion to Sell”), and 

as support therefore state as follows:

1. The Defendants ask the Court to vacate or stay the Haverford Sale Order – which 

permits the Receiver to sell Defendants’ primary residence located at 568 Ferndale Lane in Haverford, 

Pennsylvania (the “Haverford Home”), which they have owned outright since 20161 – so that they 

may file a Response in opposition to the Receiver’s Motion to Sell demonstrating good cause why the 

Haverford Home should not be sold. 

 1 The Haverford Home is owned by Blue Valley Holdings, LLC (“Blue Valley”), which was 100% owned and controlled 

by Lisa McElhone prior to the Court’s Expansion Order bringing that company within the Receivership Estate. (ECF 436). 

Blue Valley is not a defendant in this action and there is no judgment against that entity. Furthermore, the Expansion 

Order is the subject of the Defendants’ pending appeal and may be reversed.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1610 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2023 Page 1 of 4
- 2 -

2. The Receiver’s Motion to Sell was filed on June 19, 2023 at 1:03 p.m., and requested 

that the Court enter an order authorizing the sale if no party filed an objection on or before June 26, 

2023. Notwithstanding, at 8:41 p.m. that same day (less than eight hours after the motion was filed) 

the Court granted the Receiver’s Motion to Sell, effectively denying the Defendants (and other parties) 

any opportunity to respond or object. 

3. The Court’s decision to grant the Motion to Sell without permitting the Defendants to 

file a Response brief and without conducting a hearing constituted a denial of due process because it 

deprived the Defendants of an opportunity to be heard in connection with the forced sale of their 

home. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (“Procedural due 

process imposes constraints on governmental decisions which deprive individuals of ‘liberty’ or 

‘property’ interests within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth or Fourteenth 

Amendment”); see also Parker v. Williams, 862 F.2d 1471, 1481–82 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[P]rocedural 

due process is an absolute right .... Although the result in this case may work a hardship on [a party] 

with no change in the ultimate result, every party must have the opportunity to participate in the 

processes which may affect his or her rights in a significant manner”).

4. The Defendants have several meritorious arguments supporting the denial of the 

Motion. These arguments include, without limitation, the following:

• The Expansion Order which brought the Haverford Home into the Receivership Estate is the 

subject of a pending appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Therefore, the sale of the Haverford Home

– which would permanently dispossess Defendants of their interest in this nonfungible

property – will result in irreparable harm if the Defendants prevail on appeal.

• The sale of the Haverford Home is not necessary at this time because the other assets in the 

Receivership estate are more than sufficient to satisfy the final judgement against the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1610 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2023 Page 2 of 4
- 3 -

Defendants. Accordingly, the forced sale of the Defendants’ primary residence would be both 

inequitable and punitive. 

• It appears that the Receiver may have undervalued the Haverford Home, as he received three 

offers above the asking price almost immediately after listing the property for sale. 

• The Receiver did not meet and confer with the Defendants regarding the relief sought in the 

Motion to Sell. 

5. Defendants respectfully request that they be afforded their constitutional right to due 

process and that the Haverford Sale Order be vacated forthwith so that Defendants may timely file 

their objections to the Receiver’s Motion to Sell. 

WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter an order vacating or 

staying its Haverford Sale Order, and permitting the Defendants to file an Objection or Response to 

the Receiver’s Motion to Sell on or before June 26, 2023. 

S.D. Fla L. R. 7.1(a)(3p) Certification of Counsel

Counsel for Ms. McElhone hereby certifies that they conferred with counsel for the Receiver, 

Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq., and have confirmed that the Receiver opposes the relief sought herein. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1610 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2023 Page 3 of 4
- 4 -

KAPLAN ZEENA LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Lisa McElhone

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3050

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 530-0800

Facsimile: (305) 530-0801 

By: /s/ James M. Kaplan

JAMES M. KAPLAN

Florida Bar No.: 921040

james.kaplan@kaplanzeena.com

elizabeth.salom@kaplanzeena.com

service@kaplanzeena.com 

NOAH E. SNYDER

Florida Bar No.: 107415

noah.snyder@kaplanzeena.com

maria.escobales@kaplanzeena.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 21st day of June, 2023, I electronically filed the forgoing 

document with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is 

being served this day on counsel of record via transmissions of Notices of Electronic Filing generated 

by CM/ECF.

By: /s/ James M. Kaplan

 JAMES M. KAPLAN

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW 

FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT

Attorneys for Defendant Joseph W. LaForte

One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 525-4100

By: /s/ David L. Ferguson

DAVID L. FERGUSON

Florida Bar Number: 0981737

Ferguson@kolawyers.com 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1610 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/21/2023 Page 4 of 4