The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER; (1) FREEZING ASSETS; AND (2) PROHIBITING THE DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This matter came to be heard upon Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's ("Commission") Ex Parte Application For A Temporary Restraining Order; Orders: (1) Freezing Assets; (2) Appointing a Temporary Receiver (3) Requiring Accountings; (4) Prohibiting The Destruction Of Documents, (5) Granting Expedited Discovery; And Order To Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of A Permanent Receiver (the "Application").
The Court, having considered the Commission's Complaint, the Application, the supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declarations and Exhibits, and all other evidence and argument presented regarding the Application, finds that:
A. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this action;
B. Good cause exists to believe that Defendants Plus Money, Inc. ("Plus Money") and Matthew "Beau" La Madrid ("La Madrid"), and each of them, have engaged in, are engaging in, and are about to engage in transactions, acts, practices and courses of business which constitute violations of Sections 206(1), (2) and (4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(1), (2) and (4), and Rule 206(4)-8 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8;
C. The Commission has demonstrated a probability of success on the merits in this case; and the possibility of dissipation of assets;
D. Good cause exists to believe that Defendants will continue to engage in such violations to the immediate and irreparable loss and damage to investors and to the general public unless they are restrained and enjoined; and
E. It is appropriate, and the interests of justice require, that the Application be granted without notice to Defendants as the Commission has certified in writing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b) and Local Rule 83.3(h) the reasons supporting the Commission's claim that notice should not be required, and it appears from specific facts shown by the declarations and other supporting evidence filed by the Commission that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result if notice to Defendants is given.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Commission's Ex Parte Application is hereby GRANTED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants Plus Money and La Madrid and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, by personal service or otherwise, and each of them, be and hereby are temporarily restrained and enjoined from, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or indirectly:
A. employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client; and
B. engaging in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client, in violation of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the ...