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.

______________________________________/ 

ORDER HOLDING DEFENDANT JOSEPH COLE BARLETA 

IN CONTEMPT OF COURT

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the contempt proceedings initiated by the 

Court’s Order to Show Cause, [ECF No. 1553]. The Receiver filed a Motion for an Order to Show 

Cause Why Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta Should Not Be Held in Contempt (“Motion”) on April 

24, 2023. [ECF No. 1552]. The Court granted the Receiver’s Motion and set the matter for an 

evidentiary hearing on June 5, 2023. [ECF No. 1553]. Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta filed a 

Response to the Order to Show Cause on April 26, 2023, [ECF No. 1554], and the Receiver filed 

a Reply on May 1, 2023, [ECF No. 1560]. The Reply included email correspondence between the 

parties regarding repeated requests over the course of more than a year for production of the 

documents in question. [ECF No. 1560–1]. The Court having reviewed the operative filings, the 

relevant caselaw, and with the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta is in CONTEMPT

for repeated failure to comply with this Court’s Order Granting Receiver’s Motion to Compel 

(“Order”), [ECF No. 1222], as further explained herein. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1586 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2023 Page 1 of 5
Page - 2 - of 5

LEGAL STANDARD

“Courts have the inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders by the 

exercise of contempt powers.” Campos v. Chavam Enters., Inc., No. 15-14370, 2021 WL 

1178548, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 16, 2021) (citing Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 

F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991)), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 1177485 (S.D. 

Fla. Mar. 29, 2021) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)). “On a contempt motion, the movant bears the 

initial burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, the defendant’s noncompliance with 

a court order.” Thomas v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Ass’n, 594 F.3d 813, 821 (11th Cir. 2010). “This 

requires proving that (1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear 

and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order.” SEC v. 

Greenberg, 105 F. Supp. 3d 1342, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2015) (quoting Ga. Power Co. v. NLRB., 484 

F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2007)). “To meet the initial burden for a finding of civil contempt, a 

moving party need only show that defendant failed to comply with the court’s order.” Van De 

Velde NV v. Felder, No. 15-24096, 2017 WL 8895345, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 25, 2017), report and 

recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 8895340 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2017) (citing United States v. 

Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 755 (1983)). 

“[T]o avoid contempt, a defendant must show that he or she either did not violate the court 

order as alleged or that she was ‘excused’ from complying with such order.” Id. A defendant may 

only be excused from compliance upon a showing that “despite all reasonable efforts to comply 

with the court’s order, compliance was impossible.” Brother v. BFP Invs., Ltd., No. 03-60129, 

2010 WL 2978077, at *2 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2010). The Eleventh Circuit “construe[s] this 

requirement strictly.” Combs v. Ryan’s Coal Co., Inc., 785 F.2d 970, 984 (11th Cir. 1986). Even

if the efforts made by a defendant are “substantial, diligent, or in good faith” the fact that a 

defendant did not make “all reasonable efforts” to comply with the order, establishes that the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1586 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2023 Page 2 of 5
Page - 3 - of 5

defendant has failed to rebut the showing of contempt. United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 726 

(11th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

ANALYSIS

Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta has demonstrated severe disdain for the Court’s orders, 

thereby meriting a finding of contempt. Pursuant to the Amended Order Appointing Receiver 

[ECF No. 141] (“Amended Appointment Order”), the Receiver has the power to take custody, 

control, and possession of all Receiver Property and records relevant thereto. Am. Appointment 

Order ¶ 7(B). Additionally, “the Receiver is authorized to take immediate possession of all assets, 

bank accounts or other financial accounts, books and records and all other documents or 

instruments relating to the Receivership Entities,” and “all persons and entities having control, 

custody or possession of any Receivership Property hereby directed to turn such property over to 

the Receiver.” Id. ¶ 15. The Receiver’s appointment in this case was made pursuant to the Court’s 

general equitable powers and relevant securities laws. See, e.g., SEC v. First Fin. Grp. of Tex., 

645 F.2d 429, 438 (5th Cir. 1981); see also Section 22(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 77v(a), and Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. The Amended 

Appointment Order specifically provides the Receiver with the power to serve on behalf of the 

estates of the Receivership Entities “until further order of this Court.” Am. Appointment Order 

¶ 2. No orders limiting the Receiver’s powers or terminating the Receivership have been entered. 

Therefore, Cole’s repeated refusal to produce documents pursuant to the Amended Appointment 

Order amounts to nothing more than a delay tactic and demonstrates contempt of this Court. 

The email exhibits attached to the Receiver’s Reply illustrate how diligently, patiently, yet

doggedly the Receiver has attempted to obtain the documents in question for over a year. 

Reply [ECF No. 1560–1] Ex. 1 at 2–27. After serving Cole with several requests for documents, 

the Receiver had to motion this Court to compel Cole’s compliance, which the Court granted. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1586 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2023 Page 3 of 5
Page - 4 - of 5

See Order [ECF No. 1222]. When Cole continued to flout that Order, the Receiver signaled to the 

Court during the April 17, 2023 Status Conference that it had no choice left but to move to hold 

Cole in contempt for failure to comply with Court orders. See [ECF No. 1547]. 1

 Counsel for 

Cole, Andre G. Raikhelson, previewed for the Court what his arguments against producing the 

documents would be, which largely mirrored the arguments he advanced in his Response. Id. The 

Court informed Mr. Raikhelson at that time, in no uncertain terms, that it would look unfavorably 

upon his arguments that the Receiver’s powers did not extend “past the final judgment,” Resp. at 

4, and urged Mr. Raikhelson to convince his client to comply with the Receiver’s requests and the 

Court’s Order. See [ECF No. 1547]. Cole continued to flout the Order and the Receiver motioned 

to hold Cole in contempt. 

During the Show Cause hearing held on June 5, 2023, the Court reaffirmed that the 

Amended Appointment Order is valid, unchanged, and lawful. See [ECF No. 1583]. Cole was 

unable to demonstrate any inability to comply with the Court’s Order. Id. Every attempt Cole has 

made to challenge the lawfulness of the Order has failed. See Mot. ¶¶ 1–13. The Order was also 

clear, definite, and unambiguous. Ga. Power Co., 484 F.3d at 1291. It identified ten categories 

of assets in which Cole may have a personal or business interest and required document production 

relevant to those categories from 2016 to present. See Reply at 8. Lastly, Cole admitted that he 

had every ability to comply with this Order when asked in open court. [ECF No. 1583]. So, 

although Cole may have been unwilling to comply, he is not unable. See id. Cole, through his 

counsel Mr. Raikhelson, blatantly “violated a specific and definite order of the court,” by which 

he was bound. See FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). As such, 

finding Cole in contempt under these circumstances is proper.

1

 By this point, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had also denied Cole’s Motion 

to Stay. Mot. at 4; Reply at 6. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1586 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2023 Page 4 of 5
Page - 5 - of 5

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta is held in CONTEMPT for violating the Court’s

Order [ECF No. 1222]. Cole will have ten (10) days to comply in full with the Order [ECF No. 

1222] and the Receiver’s requests for production. Cole’s compliance shall include producing all 

requested documents from 2016 through the date of this Order. Should Cole fail to comply within 

ten (10) days of the date of this Order, the Receiver shall notify the Court, and the Court will 

consider imposing a daily coercive fine until full compliance has been achieved. 

2. A federal court has the inherent power to sanction a party. Purchasing Power, LLC 

v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 851 F.3d 1218, 1223 (11th Cir. 2017). Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(a)(5)(A) commands courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a party prevailing 

on a motion for an order compelling discovery. The Court, having given Cole an opportunity to 

be heard, awards the Receiver all “reasonable expenses incurred” in making its Motion, [ECF No. 

1552], and pursuing this discovery for over a year. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The Court having 

scrutinized the 82.39 hours of billing records submitted by the Receiver in connection with 

pursuing this discovery request for over a year and litigating the Motion finds the time spent and 

hourly rate requested reasonable. See Receiver’s Notice of Filing Time Records [ECF No. 1584]. 

Accordingly, Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta is INSTRUCTED to pay the Receiver $28,874.50

in attorneys’ fees and costs on or before July 6, 2023. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 6th day of June, 2023. 

________________________________ 

RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1586 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/06/2023 Page 5 of 5