UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

March 04, 2024 

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

Clerk - Southern District of Florida

U.S. District Court 

400 N MIAMI AVE

MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 

Appeal Number: 23-11927-HH 

Case Style: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph Barleta 

District Court Docket No: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court's 

decision, is also being forwarded to counsel and pro se parties. A copy of the court's decision 

was previously forwarded to counsel and pro se parties on the date it was issued. 

The enclosed copy of the judgment is hereby issued as mandate of the court. The court's opinion 

was previously provided on the date of issuance. 

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers 

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122 

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200 

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141 

Enclosure(s) 

MDT-1 Letter Issuing Mandate

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 1 of 1 

JG Mar 4, 2024 MIAMI

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 1 of 12
In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11927

____________________

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

ALAN J. CANDELL, et. al., 

Inervenor Plaintiffs,

RYAN K. STUMPHAUZER,

Court Appointed Receiver for Complete Business Solutions, Inc.

and other receivership entities,

Interested Party-Appellee,

versus

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,

d.b.a. Par Funding, et al.,

Defendants,

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 35-2 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 1 of 3

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 2 of 12
2 23-11927

JOSEPH COLE BARLETA, 

a.k.a. Joe Cole, 

Defendant-Appellant,

FRED A. SCHWARTZ,

Consol. Defendant,

LEAD FUNDING II, LLC, et. al., 

Intervenors.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

____________________

JUDGMENT

It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion issued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of this 

Court.

Entered: January 11, 2024

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 35-2 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 2 of 3

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 3 of 12
23-11927 Opinion of the Court 3 

For the Court: DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS MANDATE: March 4, 2024

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 35-2 Date Filed: 03/04/2024 Page: 3 of 3

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 4 of 12
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11927

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

ALAN J. CANDELL, et al.,

Intervenor Plaintiffs,

RYAN K. STUMPHAUZER,

Court Appointed Receiver for Complete Business Solutions, Inc.

and other receivership entities,

Interested Party-Appellee,

versus

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,

d.b.a. Par Funding, et al., 

Defendants, 

JOSEPH COLE BARLETA,

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 1 of 6

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 5 of 12
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11927

a.k.a. Joe Cole, 

Defendant-Appellant,

FRED A. SCHWARTZ,

Consol. Defendant,

LEAD FUNDING II, LLC, et al., 

Intervenors. 

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Cole Barleta (“Cole”) appeals the district court’s contempt order and the accompanying sanctions levied against him. 

That order emerged from a discovery dispute between Cole and 

the Receivership created to control an entity for which Cole previously worked and served as an officer. On appeal, Cole makes two 

main arguments challenging the contempt order and related sanctions. First, he contends that the Receivership ceased to exist during the litigation due to provisions in the Federal Debt Collection

Procedures Act and, accordingly, did not “have standing” to ask for 

the contempt order and sanctions at issue here on appeal. Second, 

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 2 of 6

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 6 of 12
23-11927 Opinion of the Court 3

he asserts that the discovery dispute between him and the Receivership became “stale” before the district court granted the contempt order. In the event we disagree, Cole also asks us to reduce 

the sanctions amount imposed on him by the district court. After 

careful review, we conclude that all of Cole’s arguments fail and 

we thus affirm the district court’s order and sanctions.

I

The narrow issues presented in this appeal stem from a 

broader securities fraud litigation involving Par Funding and associated companies. At the outset of the litigation, the SEC asked the 

district court to appoint a receiver to preserve the assets and records of Par Funding and affiliated entities. The district court 

granted this request and authorized the Receiver—among other 

things—to collect financial records relating to the entities falling 

under its purview. In the same order, the district court ordered

past and present officers and employees of the entities covered by 

the Receivership to turn over such financial information. 

Cole is one of those covered individuals. After Cole repeatedly refused to turn over documents sought by the Receiver—including information requested pursuant to a granted motion to 

compel—the district court held Cole in contempt. The district 

court also found Cole’s reluctance to hand over the requested information sufficiently obstinate to issue sanctions against him. 

On appeal, Cole challenges the validity of the contempt order and the sanctions levied against him. First, he argues that the 

Receivership ceased to exist before the district court issued the 

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 3 of 6

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 7 of 12
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11927

contempt order because of provisions in the FDCPA. Second, he

contends the discovery requests giving rise to the Receiver’s motion to compel were “stale,” and thus, the ensuing contempt order 

was void. Third, he argues that the sanctions accompanying the 

contempt order were invalid for similar reasons, and even if we 

disagree, he asks us to reduce the sanctions awarded by the district 

court. 

II

We review the district court’s civil contempt findings under 

an abuse of discretion standard. Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. 

Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991). “A district court 

abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, applies 

the law in an unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper 

procedures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact 

that are clearly erroneous.” Citizens for Police Accountability Pol.

Comm. v. Browning, 572 F.3d 1213, 1216–17 (11th Cir. 2009). We 

review a district court order of sanctions under that same standard

of review. Barnes v. Dalton, 158 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir. 1998). 

Cole first argues that the contempt order was invalid because provisions in the FDCPA effectively ended the Receivership. 

For support, he points us primarily to 28 U.S.C. § 3103, which says 

that “[a] receivership shall not continue past the entry of judgment.” This argument is without merit. As other provisions in the 

Act demonstrate, the FDCPA lays out procedure rules for debt collection. 28 U.S.C. § 3001(a). The Receivership was not created to 

collect a debt from Cole or, for that matter, anyone else on behalf 

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 4 of 6

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 8 of 12
23-11927 Opinion of the Court 5 

of the United States. Instead, the district court appointed the Receiver at the request of the SEC to preserve assets and records belonging to companies subject to an ongoing enforcement action. 

Accordingly, the FDCPA’s rules for ending a receivership after “entry of judgment” in § 3103 are irrelevant to this appeal, and Cole’s 

argument that the Receivership lacked “standing” fails. 

Cole next argues that the contempt order was illegitimate 

because the discovery dispute giving rise to the contempt finding 

was “stale.” In brief, Cole argues that the Receiver “abandoned” 

its discovery requests. This argument likewise fails. The Receiver 

initially requested documents and interrogatories on January 12, 

2021. Cole never responded to the Receiver or objected to this request. The Receiver then asked Cole’s counsel for relevant information again on February 21, 2022. Cole refused. After more back 

and forth with Cole’s counsel, the Receiver filed a motion to compel Cole to produce requested materials on March 19, 2022, which 

the district court granted on April 29, 2022. The discovery saga

wore on, ultimately ending with the district court holding Cole in 

contempt of court. We see no evidence in this timeline that the 

Receiver ever “abandoned” its discovery requests.1 If anything, the 

1 Cole’s references to district court decisions do not help his argument on this 

front. In those cases, the discovery deadline was near or had passed, or the 

requesting party had failed to move to compel. Here, by contrast, Cole does 

not argue that the discovery end date was immediate or that it had passed. 

And, given the facts of this case, it is clear that the Receivership had moved to 

compel Cole to produce the relevant documents. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 5 of 6 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 9 of 12
6 Opinion of the Court 23-11927

record suggests any delays in the production of documents are due 

to Cole’s recalcitrance. 

Finally, Cole challenges the validity of the sanctions accompanying the district court’s contempt order as well as the amount 

of sanctions awarded. While difficult to discern, Cole’s attack on 

the legitimacy of the district court’s sanctions order appears to rely 

mainly on his argument about the FDCPA’s applicability. For reasons already explained, we conclude this argument lacks merit. In 

any event, Cole fails to appreciate that the district court sanctioned 

him for his broader practice of ignoring the court’s orders during 

discovery, not just for making his FDCPA argument. Accordingly, 

he has given us no reason to conclude that the district court abused 

its discretion when it issued sanctions, either concerning its decision to issue sanctions in the first place or the specific amount of 

attorneys’ fees awarded. 

AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 6 of 6

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 10 of 12
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING

56 Forsyth Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith

Clerk of Court 

January 11, 2024

For rules and forms visit

www.ca11.uscourts.gov

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

Appeal Number: 23-11927-E 

Case Style: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph Barleta 

District Court Docket No: 9:20-cv-81205-RAR

Electronic Filing

All counsel must file documents electronically using the Electronic Case Files ("ECF") system, 

unless exempted for good cause. Although not required, non-incarcerated pro se parties are 

permitted to use the ECF system by registering for an account at www.pacer.gov. Information 

and training materials related to electronic filing are available on the Court's website.

Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision filed today in this appeal. Judgment has this day been 

entered pursuant to FRAP 36. The court's mandate will issue at a later date in accordance with 

FRAP 41(b). 

The time for filing a petition for rehearing is governed by 11th Cir. R. 40-3, and the time for 

filing a petition for rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir. R. 35-2. Except as otherwise 

provided by FRAP 25(a) for inmate filings, a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc is 

timely only if received in the clerk's office within the time specified in the rules. Costs are 

governed by FRAP 39 and 11th Cir.R. 39-1. The timing, format, and content of a motion for 

attorney's fees and an objection thereto is governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3. 

Please note that a petition for rehearing en banc must include in the Certificate of Interested 

Persons a complete list of all persons and entities listed on all certificates previously filed by 

any party in the appeal. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1. In addition, a copy of the opinion sought to be 

reheard must be included in any petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See

11th Cir. R. 35-5(k) and 40-1 . 

Counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming 

compensation for time spent on the appeal no later than 60 days after either issuance of mandate 

or filing with the U.S. Supreme Court of a petition for writ of certiorari (whichever is later) via 

the eVoucher system. Please contact the CJA Team at (404) 335-6167 or 

cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the eVoucher 

system. 

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-2 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 1 of 2 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 11 of 12
Clerk's Office Phone Numbers

General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122

Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200

CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141

OPIN-1 Ntc of Issuance of Opinion

USCA11 Case: 23-11927 Document: 33-2 Date Filed: 01/11/2024 Page: 2 of 2

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1823 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2024 Page 12 of 12