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 DENYING DEFENDANT JOSEPH COLE BARLETA’S 

MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta’s Motion to 

Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal and Motion for Order to Approve Supersedeas Bond 

[ECF No. 1460] (“Motion”), filed on December 7, 2022. The SEC filed a Response Opposing 

Cole’s Motion on January 9, 2023 [ECF No. 1482] (“Response”), and Cole filed a Reply brief on 

January 17, 2023 [ECF No. 1491]. Having reviewed the Motion, Response, Reply, and being 

otherwise fully advised, it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that DefendantJoseph Cole Barleta’s Motion is DENIED

for the reasons stated herein. 

ANALYSIS

Cole’s Motion rests on what appears to be deliberate indifference to a key element of the 

Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief Against Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta 

(“Judgment”), see [ECF No. 1018], to which Cole agreed, and on which the Court relied in its 

Amended Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Amended Omnibus Motion for Final Judgment, [ECF 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1502 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2023 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 of 4

No. 1450] (“Disgorgement Order”). Accordingly, the Court need not engage with the minutiae of 

Cole’s arguments, as they all rest on a faulty premise. 

Paragraph 5 of the Consent of Defendant Joseph Cole Barleta (“Consent”) clearly states, 

in relevant part, as follows:

Defendant further agrees that in connection with the Commission’s 

motion for disgorgement and/or civil penalties . . . (a) Defendant 

will be precluded from arguing that he did not violate the federal 

securities laws as alleged in the Complaint . . . (c) solely for the 

purposes of such motion, the allegations in the Complaint shall be 

accepted and deemed true by the Court; and (d) the Court may

determine the issues raised in the motion on the basis of affidavits, 

declarations, excerpts of sworn deposition or investigative 

testimony, and documentary evidence, without regard to the 

standards for summary judgment contained in Rule 56(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[ECF No. 1016-1] ¶ 5 (emphasis and underlining added). This exact language is repeated in the

Judgment. See [ECF No. 1018] at 5. These documents are not long, nor are they particularly 

complex. Defendant cites to and quotes from these filings in his Motion and Reply. See Mot. at 

29, Reply at 5. But Defendant mischaracterizes the Judgment by stating that “nothing in the 

Consent Decree of Joseph Cole Barleta even closely functions as an admission” that the allegations 

contained in the SEC’s Complaint are true for the purposes of the Disgorgement Order. See Mot. 

at 29. Cole then selectively quotes portions of the Consent that support his position, see Reply at 

2, while failing to quote the key language highlighted above. 

In attempting to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal, Cole faults 

this Court for focusing too much on the Amended Complaint, while failing to cite to the “copious 

amounts” of other evidence in the record. See, e.g., Reply at 5. The Court, once again, points Cole 

to the plain language of his Consent, which states that the Court “shall” take the allegations in the 

Amended Complaint as true for purposes of the Disgorgement Order, while stating that the Court 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1502 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2023 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 of 4

“may” look to other record evidence in ruling on the Motion. See Consent [ECF No. 1016-1] ¶ 5. 

The Court fully complied with the provisions of the Consent in issuing its ruling. 

Notably, Cole’s Motion deliberately omits and mischaracterizes facts to advance its

arguments, while simultaneously accusing this Court of negligence in its decision-making process. 

As such, this Motion verges into the territory of Rule 11 sanctions. “When deciding whether to 

impose sanctions under Rule 11, a district court must conduct a two-step inquiry, determining ‘(1) 

whether the party’s claims are objectively frivolous; and (2) whether the person who signed the 

pleadings should have been aware that they were frivolous.’” Gulisano v. Burlington, Inc., 34 

F.4th 935, 942 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 524 (11th Cir. 1998)). 

“Sanctions are warranted, however, when the attorney exhibits ‘a deliberate indifference to 

obvious facts.’” Id. at 942 (quoting Baker, 158 F.3d at 524). 

It is hard to fathom how Cole’s quoting from one portion of the Consent that might support 

his argument—while conveniently ignoring the operative lines of the Consent that eviscerate the 

foundational premises of his Motion—does not constitute deliberate indifference to obvious facts. 

“If the attorney failed to make a reasonable inquiry, then ‘the court must impose sanctions despite 

the attorney’s good faith belief that the claims were sound.’” Id. (quoting Worldwide Primates, 

Inc. v. McGreal, 87 F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996)). Even after the SEC pointed out Cole’s 

foundational error in its Response, Cole doubled down on his arguments in his Reply brief and 

mischaracterized the Consent. See Reply at 4. “That the contentions contained in the [filing] were 

not frivolous at the time it was filed does not prevent the district court from sanctioning [the 

attorney] for his continued advocacy of them after it should have been clear that those contentions 

were no longer tenable.” See Turner v. Sungard Bus. Sys., Inc., 91 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th Cir. 

1996). 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1502 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2023 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 of 4

The Court cautions Defendants against filing similarly spurious motions in the future, 

which sap precious judicial time and resources. The Court will not hesitate to impose sanctions 

for future violations of Rule 11. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 27th day of January, 2023. 

 

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1502 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2023 Page 4 of 4