Court Opinion

ID: 9915009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 01:00:39.589419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:23.092027
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10046    Document: 00517020712       Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/03/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                              ____________                               FILED
                                                                   January 3, 2024
                               No. 23-10046                         Lyle W. Cayce
                              ____________                               Clerk

   Securities and Exchange Commission,

                                                         PlaintiffAppellee,

                                    versus

   Timothy Barton; Et al.,

                                                                Defendants,

   Maximilien Barton; Gillespie Villas, L.L.C.; Venus59,
   L.L.C.; TRTX Properties, L.L.C.; MXBA, L.L.C.; Titan
   Investments, L.L.C.,

                                              Interested PartiesAppellants,

   TC Hall, L.L.C.; Titan 2022 Investment, L.L.C.,

                                                                 Appellants.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 3:22-CV-2118
                 ______________________________
Case: 23-10046         Document: 00517020712             Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/03/2024

                                          No. 23-10046

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          This dispute stems from the SECs ongoing civil enforcement action
   against Timothy Barton and others for alleged fraud. The district court
   appointed a receiver over entities that . . . Timothy Barton directly or
   indirectly controls. The receivers control extended to entities purportedly
   controlled by Timothy Bartons son Maximilien Barton via an identification
   order entered by the district court. Maximilien Barton brought this appeal
   challenging the scope of the receivership as to those entities.
           While this appeal was pending, this court vacated the district courts
   receivership order in a separate appeal filed by Timothy Barton. See SEC v.
   Barton, 79 F.4th 576, 58182 (5th Cir. 2023). The vacatur was to take effect
   90 days from the date of the mandates issuance. Id. On November 29,
   2023the day the vacatur was to take effectthe district court entered a
   series of orders, including a new receivership order. Relevant to this appeal,
   the new receivership order retained the Maximilien Barton entities under the
   receivers control.
          Given the district courts new receivership order, we asked the parties
   for supplemental briefing as to the November 29 orders effect on this case.
   The parties assert that the instant appeal is moot because it is impossible for
   this court to grant any effectual relief to the prevailing party. U.S. Navy
   SEALs 126 v. Biden, 72 F.4th 666, 672 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
   We agree. Because the subject of the appealthe now-vacated receivership
   orderno longer exists, there is no effectual relief that could be granted to
   Appellants. Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2