Case Name: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis WILDE; et al., Defendants, and Mark A. Gelazela, Defendant-Appellant; United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Wilde; et al., Defendants-Appellants and Steven E. Woods; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-03
Citations: 669 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 13-55043, No. 13-55295
Parties: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis WILDE; et al., Defendants, and Mark A. Gelazela, Defendant-Appellant. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Wilde; et al., Defendants-Appellants and Steven E. Woods; et al., Defendants.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, GRABER, and 'WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 423–423

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis WILDE; et al., Defendants, and Mark A. Gelazela, Defendant-Appellant. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Wilde; et al., Defendants-Appellants and Steven E. Woods; et al., Defendants.
No. 13-55043, No. 13-55295
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2016
Filed October 03, 2016
David Lisitza, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul Gerard Alvarez, Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC,
Mark Alan Gelazela, Marina Del Rey, CA, Pro Se.
Before: D.W. NELSON, GRABER, and 'WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendants appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment on the Securities and Exchange Commission's securities fraud claims. We affirm the district court's order because defendants have failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute as to any material fact in this case. We also find that the district court acted within its discretion by ordering disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.