N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
U.S. SEC UR ITIES & EXC HANGE C OM M ISSION, a g e nt of Tim o thy S. M c C ole , Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B ELLW ETHER

VENTUR

E C APITAL FUND I, INC .; STR

ATEGY PAR TNER S, LLC , De fe nda

nts,
a nd OM A R A. RIZVI, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-56753

D.C . No. 8:10-c v-01632-JVS-FFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Jam e s V. Se lna , Distric t

Judge , Pre siding 

# F IL ED
JUL 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d June 22, 2015 **

B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . Suspe n de d C a l ifornia

attorne y Om ar A. R iz v i a

ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in theSe c uritie s & Exc ha n ge C o m m ission’ s (“ SEC ” ) c ivil e nforc e m e nt a c tion a lle ging tha t R i z vi viola

te d va rious fe de ra l
se c uritie s la

ws. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo, SEC v . Platforms W ire le ss Int’l C orp . , 617 F.3d 1072, 1085 (9th C ir. 2010),
and we a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt a ga i nst Ri z vi on the SEC ’ s c la im s unde r §§ 5(a ), (c ) of the Se c uritie s Ac t of 1933 (“ Se c uritie s Ac t” ) be c a use R iz vi fa ile d to re but the SEC ’ s e vide nc e that R iz vi sold or offe re d for sa le
se c uritie s without prior re gistra tion with the

SEC , a nd no e xe m

ption from
re gistra tion a pplie d. S e e 15 U.S.C . §§ 77e (a ), (c ) (prohibiting the offe r or sa le of
an unre giste re d

se c urity in inte rstat e c om

m e rc e ); SEC

v . C MK M Diamonds, Inc ., 729 F.3d 1248, 1255 (9th C ir. 2013) (e l e m e nts of a prim a fa c ie c a se for a

viola tion of § 5); SEC v . Murphy , 626 F.2d 633, 645-46 (9th C ir. 1980) (c onc luding tha t offe rings of limi te d pa

rtne rship sa le s should beinte grate d for the purpose s of

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). Ac c o rdingly , R iz v i’ s re que st for ora l a rgum e nt, se t

forth in his re

ply brie f, is de nie d. 2 1 2
- 5 6 7 5 3de te rm i ning whe the r the offe ring wa s e xe m pt from re gistra

tion). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on theSEC ’ s c la im s unde r §§ 17(a )(2), (3) of the Se c uritie s Ac t be c a use R iz vi fa ile d to re b ut the SEC ’ s e vide nc e tha

t he ne glige n t ly

m isre pre se nte d m ate ria l inform ation c onc e rning B e llwe the r Ve n ture C a

pita l Fund I, Inc .’ s e le c t ion to ope ra te a s a busine s s de ve lopm e nt c o m

pa ny . Se e 15 U.S.C . § 77q(a )(2-3) (prohibiting mate ria l
m issta te m e nts a n d pra c tic e s tha

t would ope ra te a s a

fra ud or de c e it upon the inve stor in c onne c tion with the offe r or sa le of a ny se c uritie s in inte rstate
c om m e rc e ); SEC

v . Phan , 500 F.3d 895, 908 (9th C ir. 2007) (e sta b lishing a viola tion of §§ 17(a

)(2) and (3) re quire s a

showing of ne glige n c e ). The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt on theSEC ’ s c la im s unde r § 17(a )(1) of the Se c uritie s Ac t, §10(b) a nd R ule 10b-5 of the Se c uritie s Exc ha nge Ac t of 1934 (“ Se c uritie s Exc ha nge Ac t” ) be c a

use R iz vi fa ile d to re but the SEC ’ s e vide nc e tha

t he re c kle ssly

m i sre pre se nte d the c om

position of the
m ana ge m e nt boa

rd of Strate gy Partne rs, LLC in a n offe ring c irc ula

r. Se e 15 U.S.C . § 77q(a )(1) (prohibiting a pe rson in theoffe r or sa l e of a se c urity “ to
e m ploy any de v ic e , sc he m e , or a

rtific e to de fra

ud” ); 15 U.S.C
. § 78j(b) (prohibiting a

ny de c e ptive pra c tic e in c onne c tion with the purc ha se or sa le of a

ny se c urity ); 17 C .F.R . § 240.10b-5(b) (prohibiting m ate ria l m isre pre se ntations in
3 1 2
- 5 6 7 5 3c onne c tion with the purc ha se or sa le of a

se c urity ); Phan , 500 F.3d a t 907-08 (e le m e nts of § 17(a), § 10(b), a nd R ule 10b-5 viola

t ions); se e also Ge bhart v . SEC, 595 F.3d 1034, 1041-42 (9th C ir. 2010) (sc ie n te r re quire m e nt of § 10(b) a nd R ule 10b-5 m ay

be e s ta blishe d by

“ re c kle ssne s s,” whic h is “ an e xtre m e de pa rture from the s ta n da rds of ordina

ry c are , . . . whic h pre se nts a da nge r of m isle a ding buy e rs or se l le rs tha

t is e i the r known to the de fe nda nt or is so obvious tha

t the a c tor m

ust have be e n aware of it” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). W e do not c onside r issue s or a rgum e nts not spe c i fic a lly and distinc t ly

ra ise d
and a rgue d in the ope ning brie f, or a rgum e n ts a

nd a lle gations ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l . Se e Padge tt v . W

right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). R iz vi’ s m o t ion to filea

late re ply brie f, file d on April 15, 2014, is gra nte d. The C le rk sha ll file the re ply brie f re c e ive d on April 15, 2014. The SEC ’ s m otion to file

a lat e opposition, file d on M ay 16, 2014, is gran te d. All othe r pe nding m otions a re de nie d. AFFIRM E D.

4 1 2
- 5 6 7 5 3