Motion,Ex Parte: CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC VS SWANGER, STEVEN A

On February 03, 2017 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Capital Equity Management Group Inc, and Brenda Gillum, Carter, Mary Rose, Carter, William Keith, Castleberry, George, Castleberry, Richard, Clements, Jamee Lynn, Clements, Rick, George Castleberry, Gillum, Brenda, Jamee Lynn Clements, Kenneth A Swanger, Mark Tillotson, Mary Rose Carter, Norcal Redevelopment Corp, Northcutt, Richard, Northern California Investments Lp, Richard Castleberry, Richard Northcutt, Rick Clements, Steven A Swanger, Swan Construction, Swanger, Kenneth A, Swanger Properties Llc, Swanger, Steven A, Swan Investments Inc, Tillotson, Mark, William Keith Carter, for Fraud: Unlimited in the District Court of Stanislaus County.

Preview
KELSEY C. LINNETT (Cal. Bar No. 274547)
JENNIFER HANE (Cal. Bar No. 275729)
Trial Attorneys
United States Department 0f Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Golden Gate Ave., Room 10-0101
San Francisco, California 94102-3478
Telephone:
KOOO‘JQU‘I-ADJNH
(415) 934—5300
Facsimile: (415) 934-5399
Email: Kelsey.Linnett@usdoj.gov

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS

CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT No.2 20235 I 9
GROUP, INC., \

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF
Plaintiff, MOTION, CONIPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION AND MOTION
VS.
TO STAY DISCOVERY
STEVEN A. SWANGER; KENNETH A.
SWANGER; BRENDA GILLUM; RICK LA-‘j-L’]
dale,
CLEMENTS; SWAN CONSTRUCTION;
SWAN INVESTMENTS, INC; SWANGER ﬁwk %‘J%O
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
aU/M
PROPERTIES, LLC; NORTHERN ’Dgﬁ 94
CALIFORNIA INVESTMENTS, L.P.;
MNNNNNNNNb—Ib—‘Hr—‘Hn—Av—IHHH

NORCAL REDEVELOPMENT CORR;
RICHARD CASTLEBERRY; GEORGE
CASTLEBERRY; JAMIE LYNN
CLEMENTS; MARY ROSE CARTER;
WILLIAM KEITH CARTER; MARK
TILLOTSON; RICHARD NORTHCUTT;
AND DOES 1TO 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

T0 plaintiff and attorney, Michael Dyer of Dyer Law Firm, and t0 defendants and their

attorneys, Dana Suntag of Herum Crabtree Suntag and William Parish 0f Parish Guy Castillo

PLC:

UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that 0n March 7, 2017, in the Superior Court 0f California

for the County 0f Stanislaus, the United States hereby moves for an order granting the United

States’ Complaint in Intervention and Motion t0 Stay Discovery. The Complaint and Motion is

made pursuant to Code ofCivil Procedure section 387(a) 0n the grounds that the United States

has an interest in intervening because civil discovery will adversely affect a closely related
\OOO‘QQLJIAUJNH

criminal case. The Complaint and Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the proposed

Complaint in Intervention, the Declaration of Jennifer Hane (“Hane DecI.”), the supporting

memorandum served and ﬁled herewith, 0n the records and ﬁle herein, and 0n such evidence as

may be presented at the hearing 0n the motion. A hearing on the Complaint and Motion is
scheduled for April 7, 2017, at 8:30 am. in Department 21.

I. INTRODUCTION
The United States moves to (a) intervene in this civil action under California Rule 0f

Civil Procedure 387 and (b) stay discovery for a period of six months. At that time, the

government requests that the Court revisit the stay to determine whether it should be modiﬁed.

The requested stay is necessary to avoid interference with a closely related federal

criminal case. On March 11, 2014, Andrew Katakis, President 0f plaintiff Capital Equity

Management Group, Inc. (“CEMG”),1 was convicted 0f conspiracy to rig bids at home

foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County, California, in violation 0f 15 U.S.C. § 1. United
NNNNNNNNNp—Ip—np—np—tp—Ap—‘HHHH

States Katakz's, United States District Court, Eastern District of California,
W‘dONUi-PUJND—‘OOOO‘JONUI-bUJNV—‘O

v. Case No: 2:1 1-CR-

511 WBS. Katakis’s motion for a new trial is stillpending.

Plaintiff’s lawsuit involves the same conspiracy to rig bids for which Katakis was

convicted, and discovery will undoubtedly center on the same evidence as the criminal

investigation. Allowing the discovery t0 proceed while the criminal trial is stillpending risks

violating the criminal protective order and the integrity 0f the criminal process.

l
At the time 0fthe criminal Katakis’s
trial, company was called California Equity Management Group, Inc. Ithas
since changed itsname to CapitalEquity Management Group, Inc. See State 0f California Secretary of State
Certiﬁcate 0f Status, Articles of Incorporation, Statement of Information, and Business Entity Detail (ExhibitA t0
Hane Decl.).

2
UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
H. BACKGROUND
A. The Criminal Case

On December 7, 201 1, a federal grand jury indicted Andrew Katakis and others for

rigging bids in violation 0f 15 U.S.C. § 1 and conspiring t0 commit mail fraud in Violation of

18 U.S.C. §
\OOO‘NJONUI-bmmr—I
1349. See Indictment (Exhibit B t0 Hane Decl.). On May 8, 2013, the grand jury

superseded t0 add a count of obstruction ofjustice, 18 U.S.C. 15 I 9,” for deleting electronic

records related to the cgnspiraoy. See Superseding Indictment (Exhibit C t0 Hans Decl.).
Following a four-week jury trial,0n March 11, 2014, Katakis was convicted 0f bid rigging and

obstruction ofjustice. The jury was unable t0 reach a verdict 0n the mail—fraud charge. See Jury

O Verdict Form (Exhibit D to Hane Decl.). After trial, Katakis moved for a judgment of acquittal

’—‘
0n the obstruction count. The District Court granted that motion, and on August 31, 201 5, the

N Ninth Circuit afﬁrmed. See United States vA Katakis, Case N0. 14-10283.

U)
Ka{aldS also moved in the District Court for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of

-h Criminal Procedure 33. According t0 the District Court’s scheduling order, brieﬁng on the new
L71
trial motion will be completed shortly, by March 20, 2017. See Order (Exhibit E to Hane Decl.).

O\
At trial, the evidence showed that Katakjs participated 'm a conspiracy to rig bids at

ﬂ public home foreclosure auctions in San Joaquin County between September 2008 and October

00
2009. Katakis and his co-conspirators were real estate investors who purchased foreclosed

\O homes, refurbished them, and sold them for a proﬁt. Trial Tr. at 71 6 (Exhibit F to Hana Decl.).

O Instead of competing at the auction, the “Group,” as the conspirators referred to themselves,

'—‘
agreed not to bid against each other. Id. at 768-69. In exchange for not competing, they paid

N each other off. Id. at 755-61, 763-64.

DJ
Katakis was one ofthe key players in the conspiracy. Id. at 1029—30. He participated

M‘-P~
primarily through his companies, CEMG and Lenders Financial Group; his employees and co-
conspirators, Steve and Ken Swanger; as well as with other co—conspirators, including Richard

ON (“Rick”) Northcutt. Id. at 1010, 1024, 1030. The Swangers and Northcutt testiﬁed at trial. A
\J
forensic accountant traced more than a million dollars 'm payoffs from Katakis and his companies

00
t0 the co-conspirators through Steve Swanger and Swan Construction. Id. at 2368-69, 23 79.

3
UNITED STATES’ COWLAINT m INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
The Katakis prosecution was the result 0f an ongoing, multi-year investigation in which

eleven real estate investors pleaded guilty. See Dept. of Justice Press Release, December 30,

2013 (Exhibit G to Hane Decl.).

B. The Civil Lawsuits in Stanislaus County

On February
KOOONJQLhﬁLHNr—n

3,2017, CEMG ﬁled the instant lawsuit against Steve and Ken Swanger,
Swan Construction, Swan Investments, Rick Northcutt, and other defendants, including unnamed

parties. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in fraud,

conspiracy t0 commit fraud, breach of ﬁduciary duties, intentional interference with prospective

economic advantage, and similar claims arising out ofthe same bid—rigging conduét for which

Katakjs was convicted. Complaint ﬂ 14-47.

On November 10, 2014, CEMG ﬁled a lawsuit similar t0 the instant action, also in

Stanislaus County Superior Court, against several of the same defendant; See Complaint,

CEMG v‘Swanger (Super. Ct. Stanislaus County, 2014, N0. 2009158) (Exhibit H t0 Hane
Decl.). Like the instant lawsuit, the 2014 complaint alleges claims related to bid—rigg'mg conduct

for which Katakis was convicted. In order to avoid interference with the criminal investigation,

the Stanislaus County Court initially stayed discovery until November 2, 2015. See Order

Granting United States” Motion to Stay Discovery in CEMG v. Swanger (Exhibit It0 Hane

Decl.). In subsequent orders, the Court has extended thg stay,
NMNNNNNNNr—‘t—tn—nv—tHh—IHHHH
most recently through April 15,

2016, by stipulation 0f the United States and the parties. See Stipulation t0 Extend Discovery

CEMG
OONJONUl-DUJNHOQWQONUI-RUJNHO

Stay in v. Swanger (Exhibit J to Hane Decl.). While that stipulation has expired, the

United States is currently unaware 0f discovery in that matter.

Instead, 0p March 1, 2017, the United States spoke with plaintiff’s counsel and conﬁrmed

that plaintiff intends t0 move forward with civil discovery in the instant case. Accordingly, the

United States respectfully requests that this Court also enter a temporary stay of discovery.

4
UNITED STATES’ COWLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
HI. LEGAL FRAlVIEWORK
Under both Federal and California law, the government may intervene when itseeks t0

stay proceedings pending completion 0f a related criminal investigation. See Federal Rule 0f

Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 387. “Numerous courts have allowed the

United States government t0 intervene in a civil case for the purpose 0f moving to stay discovery
\OOOQG‘NU‘I-hUJNH

and other proceedings until the resolution of a related criminal case.” S.E.C. v.Nicholas, 569 F.

Supp. 2d 1065, 1068 (CD. Cal. 2008) (citations omitted).

This Court may also stay proceedings in an action pursuant to itsinherent power to

control its docket. Landis v. North American C0,, 299 U.S. 248, 254—55 (1936). “[A] court may
decide in itsdiscretion to stay civil proceedings .. .‘when the interests ofjustice seem [ ]t0

require such action?” Keating v. Oﬂice ofThrzﬁ Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995),

citing Division v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970).

In determining whether to stay a civil proceeding, a court considers the “particular

circumstances and competing interests involved in the case,” as well as the following factors:

(1) the public interest in the pending civil and criminal litigation; (2) the private interests of the

plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation, and the potential prejudice to the

plaintiff 0f a delay; (3) the
NNNNNNNNNb—‘i—‘b—‘HI—AHp—Ip—nr—Ay—A
burden Which any particular aspect 0f the proceedings may impose on
defendants; (4) the convenience of the coun in the management 0f its case, and the efﬁcient use

ofjudicial resources; and (5) the interests 0f persons 0r entities not parties t0 the civil litigation.
OOHONM-hUJNHOKOOOﬂQLh-PWNHO

Federal Savings and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902-04 (9th Cir. 1989).

“[W]hen both civil and criminal proceedings arise out 0f the same or related transactions

an obj ecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition

of the criminal matter.” Pacers, Inc. v.Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 3d 686, 690, 208 Cal. _

Rptr. 743, 745-46 (Ct. App. 1984).

IV. ARGUMENT
Considering the ﬁve factors set forth in Molinaro, the balance weighs in favor of a

temporary stay 0f discovery.

5
UNITED STATES’ COWLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
A. The Public Interest in Criminal Enforcement

Of the ﬁve factors identiﬁed in Molinaro, the most important is the public interest in

criminal enforcement. See Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962)

(“[a]dministrative policy gives prion'ty t0 the public interest in law enforcement. This seems so

necessary and wise that a trialjudge should give substantial weight t0 itin balancing the policy
\DOOQONUI-PUJNH

against the right of a civil litigant to a reasonably prompt determination 0f his civil claims or

liabilities”); Bureerong v. Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 87 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (“the interests 0f the

government in protecting itscriminal investigation are clearly the paramount concern .. ..”).

Here, there is signiﬁcant overlap between the criminal and the civil cases and Katakis’s

motion for a new criminal trial ispending. Given the similarities between the two cases,

proceeding with civil discovery could compromise the integrity 0f the criminal process.

1. The Similarities Bptween the Cases

First, the core conduct is the same. The civil case offers several causes 0f action, but they

all stem from one central allegation: the defendants “entered into a criminal conspiracy to rig the

bidding process 0f properties.” Complaint 1112;see also id. 1120. The complaint alleges that the

defendants carried out their bid-ﬁgging scheme at “auctions/private sales” where they were

supposed t0 be bidding 0n behalf 0f CEMG.
NNNNNNNNNHHa—Ap—Ap—ap—tr—It—‘Ha—t

Id. 1112. These allegations mirror the bid-rigging

charges in the Superseding Indictment. See Superseding Indictment, Count One W18, 10.

Second, the same parties are involved. Katakis was a defendant in the criminal matter.

As owner and president of CEMG, he
OO‘JQLh-PWNHOQWNJQm-DWNHO

is,for all practical purposes, the plaintiff in the civil

matter. Civil defendants Steve and Ken Swanger, and Rick Northcutt, were key witnesses at trial

in the criminal case. If there is a retrial in the criminal matter, they would likely testify again.

Tillotson did not testify at trial,but was mentioned in the criminal trial and could be a witness at

a retrial. Trial Tr. at 3283. Other civil defendants, including Norcal Redevelopment Corp.

(“Norcal”) and the Castleberrys were the subjects of extensive discussion at trial. Speciﬁcally,

Katakis’s counsel questioned government witnesses Steve and Ken Swanger about a $600,000

6
UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
investment in Norcal and their business relationship with the Castleberrys. Id. at 1921-23, 1942-

47, 1956-57, 2164-66.

Third, the time periods and locations overlap. The criminal case involves bid rigging that

occurred between September 2008 and October 2009 in San Joaquin County, California. In the

civil matter, plaintiffs causes 0f action relate t0 real estate foreclosure auctions “[i]n 0r about
\DOOQONU‘I-bUJNH

January 2009 through December 201 1, in various counties throughout California.” Complaint

119. For example, Count Two refers t0 a speciﬁc time period at the heart of the criminal

conspiracy: “In or about January 2009, DEFENDANTS and each 0f them entered into an illegal

scheme t0 rig the bidding process at the auctions/private sales. ..
.” Id.
1]20.

Finally, at trial,Katakis’s defense was that he was being swindled by the Swangers and

Northcutt, among others. At closing, Katakis’s lawyer argued that Northcutt had worked out a

deal to drive up prices 0n certain properties and funnel money to Norcal. Trial Tr. at 3283. They

kept the deal secret from Andrew Katakis. Id. Katakis has continued to air his defense theory in

the post-conviction proceedings. The allegations in the civil suit mirror this defense.

2. The Resulting Concerns

Allowing discovery t0 proceed here could signiﬁcantly compromise the integrity 0f the

criminal process. First, protected material could be used inappropriately.
MNNNNNNNNP—‘I—Ap—IHu—An—r—tr—a—Ap—A
During the course 0f

the criminal case, the government provided Katakis with voluminous discovery. The discovery

was produced pursuant to a protective order. The protective order provided that the discovery

was
OO‘JONL/‘IvPUJNHOWm‘JONm-bUJN—‘O

entrusted t0 defense counsel “only for the purposes 0f representing their respective

defendants in this criminal case.” Protective Order at 2 (Exhibit K t0 Hane Decl.). The criminal

case is ongoing, and therefore the protective order remains in effect.

Allowing civil discovery t0 move forward while Katakis has access to protected material

would invite the Plaintiff to violate the protective order by using information from the criminal

case for the civil lawsuit. This isparticularly worrisome because the allegations in the

Complaint track Katakis’s defense at trial. With n0 other enforcement mechanism, without a

7
UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
stay of discovery until after the criminal proceedings have ﬁnished the United States has no way

t0 prevent the inappropriate use 0f protected material.

Second, criminal defendants ordinarily are not entitled t0 depose prosecution witnesses.

Defendants in the instant civil action, Steve Swanger, Ken Swanger, and Richard Northcutt,

testiﬁed for the government at
\OOONJO‘xk/l-AUJNp—u
trial. Allowing Katakis to compel potential prosecution

witnesses, including pleading cooperators, in civil discovery would thwart the rules of criminal

procedure and could harass or intimidate the witnesses. See Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 15(a) and Fed.

R. Civ. Proc. 30(3); Nicholas, 569 F. Supp. 2d at 1071-72 (holding that criminal discovery rules

are “purposefully limited so as t0 prevent perjury and manufactured evidence, to protect potential

witness ﬁom harassment and intimidation, and t0 level the playing ﬁeld between the government

and the defendant, who would be shielded from certain discovery by the Fifth Amendment.” See

Bureerong v. Uvawas, 167 F.R.D. 83, 86 (CD. Cal. 1996) (“A stay of discovery Will protect the

integn'ty of the Government‘s investigation and ensure that the Defendants Will not use the civil

discovery processes to obtain discovery that isnot authorized in a cn'minal case.”) (internal

citations omitted). Again, this concern isheightened because the Complaint reﬂects Katakis’s

theory of defense in the criminal trial.

B. The Private Interests
NNNNNNNNNHb—Ip—Ir—Ar—Au—ir—‘y—nl—IH

in Proceeding Expediﬁously

The United States is sensitive t0 the need to move the civil case forward. At this time,

however, the United States sees no alternative to a temporary stay of discovery to protect the
WNQU‘l-PUJNHowmﬂONLh-DWMHO

criminal investigation. After six months, we propose reevaluating the stay based 0n the status of

the criminal investigation.

C. The Burden 0f Discovery 011 the Defendants

The United States does not know the scope of plaintiff s intended discovery requests.

D. The Convenience of the Court in the Management of Its Case, and the
Efﬁcient Use 0f Judicial Resources

The result of the criminal matter may bear on the merits 0f this civil case. The complaint

alleges one 0f Katakis’s defense theories. If,when the criminal proceedings conclude, Katakis’s

bid—rigging conviction stands, itcould prove fatal to the civil lawsuit. Itcould also have

8
UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
collateral estoppel implications and affect witness credibility. See United States v. Mendoza, 464

U.S. 154, 158 (1984) (“[O]nce an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court 0f

competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different

cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation”); see also Cal. Evid. Code § 788 (ﬁrior

felony conviction pennissible evidence to attack witness credibility).
\OWNO’NUi-PUJNH

E. The Interests 0f Persons 0r Entities Not Parties to the Civil Litigation

In criminal antitrust investigations, it iscommon for the government to call as witnesses

at trial current and former employees regarding their employer’s criminal conduct, some who

may have potential criminal exposure. Without immunity from prosecution and if they are

required to testify in a civil deposition, those individuals will be placed in the untenable position

of having to choose between asserting their Fifth Amendment right against self—incn'mination,

With the attendant adverse inference against parties t0 civil actions, see Baxter v. Palmigiano,

425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976), or testifying and running the risk of self—incrimination in the criminal

matger. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to depose such non-party witnesses, granting the

proposed stay would eliminate that dilemma.

V. CONCLUSION
The overlap between the civil complaint and the criminal matter is signiﬁcant. Absent a
NNNNNMNNMHb—‘b—‘v—‘b—‘HHHHr—A

stay, itwould be difﬁcult, if not impossible, to fashion adequiate relief that would protect the
WQONUI-PWNHOKOOO‘JQLh-hUJNF—‘O

integrity of the criminal investigation. As a result, the United States respectfully requests that

the Court grant its motion, permit it t0 intervene in this civil action, and order a stay of discovery

for six months.

Dated: March 7, 2017 Respectfully Submitted,

(LN £43m
JenniE/r Hane
Kelsey C. Linnett
Trial Attorneys
Antitrust Division
United States Department ofJustice

9
UNITED STATES’ COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

Case Info

Judge

Silveira, Marie Sovey Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 07, 2017

Case Filing Date

February 03, 2017

County

Parties

BRENDA GILLUM Defendant
CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC Plaintiff
CARTER, MARY ROSE Defendant
CARTER, WILLIAM KEITH Defendant
CASTLEBERRY, GEORGE Defendant
CASTLEBERRY, RICHARD Defendant
CLEMENTS, JAMEE LYNN Defendant
CLEMENTS, RICK Defendant
BRUNN & FLYNN Attorney for the Defendant
BENBROOK, BRADLEY A, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant
DYER, DUSTIN J, Esq. Attorney for the Plaintiff
HENDRICKSON, KURT D, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant
PARISH, WILLIAM H, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant
SAHOTA, MAHANVIR S, Esq. Attorney for the Defendant
DYER LAW FIRM Attorney for the Plaintiff
WILLIAM H PARISH PC Attorney for the Defendant
GEORGE CASTLEBERRY Defendant
GILLUM, BRENDA Defendant
JAMEE LYNN CLEMENTS Defendant
KENNETH A SWANGER Defendant
MARK TILLOTSON Defendant
MARY ROSE CARTER Defendant
NORCAL REDEVELOPMENT CORP Defendant
NORTHCUTT, RICHARD Defendant
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INVESTMENTS LP Defendant
RICHARD CASTLEBERRY Defendant
RICHARD NORTHCUTT Defendant
RICK CLEMENTS Defendant
STEVEN A SWANGER Defendant
SWAN CONSTRUCTION Defendant
SWANGER, KENNETH A Defendant
SWANGER PROPERTIES LLC Defendant
SWANGER, STEVEN A Defendant
SWAN INVESTMENTS INC Defendant
TILLOTSON, MARK Defendant
US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Intervenor
WILLIAM KEITH CARTER Defendant
Stephen Duvernay Attorney
Gerald Brunn Attorney
Benjamin Chouka Attorney
Michael Dyer Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Kelsey Linnett Attorney
Andrew Marsh Attorney
Jennifer Han Attorney
Elliot Peters Attorneys for Defendants
Steven Hirsch Attorneys for Defendants
Jennifer Huber Attorneys for Defendants
Elizabeth McCloskey Attorneys for Defendants
David Austin Attorneys for Defendants
William Holcomb Attorney
D. Durbin Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Scott Ivy Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Devon McTeer Attorney
Paul Gaus Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Doron Weinberg Attorney
Paul Pfingst Attorneys for Defendants
Russell Carlberg Attorneys for Defendants
Scott Tedmon Attorney
Matthew Block Attorney
Thomas Johnson Attorneys for Defendants
Chase Meister Attorney
William Parks Attorney
Anna Pletcher Attorney
David Ward Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP INC VS SWANGER, STEVEN A

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties