Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Vincent Steven Booth

December 17, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VINCENT STEVEN BOOTH, ET AL. ,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS ACACIA CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, LLC, MARIPOSA HOLDINGS INC., AND MICHAEL SCOTT IOANE'S MOTION TO STAY (Document 102)

INTRODUCTION *fn1

Relevant Procedural Background On November 15, 2012, Defendants Acacia Corporate Management, LLC, Mariposa Holding Inc., and Michael Scott Ioane filed a Motion for Stay in this matter. (Doc. 102.)

On November 21, 2012, Plaintiff United States of America filed its opposition to the motion. (Doc. 106.) On November 30, 2012, Defendants Vincent Steven Booth and Louise Q. Booth filed their opposition to the motion. (Doc. 107.)

On December 7, 2012, the undersigned issued a minute order, vacating the hearing on the motion and taking the matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. 110.)

For the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied. *fn2 The Parties' Positions

The Moving Defendants *fn3

Defendants Acacia Corporate Management, LLC, Mariposa Holdings Inc., and Michael Scott Ioane ("moving Defendants") assert this matter should be stayed pending the outcome of the now-pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, following Ioane's criminal conviction. Specifically, moving Defendants assert that a stay of these proceedings will "protect Ioane's Fifth Amendment rights" because the criminal appeal and the instant civil action concern "the same issues" and because the now-pending appeal "will likely result in a new criminal trial for Ioane." (Doc. 102 at 2-3.) Further, moving Defendants contend Plaintiff will not be prejudiced, that their burden would be great in the absence of a stay because "Ioane would be risking his [F]ifth

[A]mendment right," that it would be more efficient for the Court because it "is likely" his case will be "tried again finding him innocent," and that staying the matter comports with the interests of justice. ( See Doc. 102 at 4-6.)

The Government

Plaintiff United States of America opposes the moving Defendants' motion for the following reasons: (1) the Court has previously rejected Ioane's claim that his Fifth Amendment rights will be violated; (2) Ioane has been previously deposed in the instant action and testified in the criminal proceedings held in September 2011; (3) the Court previously determined it was proper to lift a previously-imposed stay of these proceedings following Ioane's conviction; and (4) that the moving Defendants have not provided a "precise explanation of how Mr. Ioane's rights would be jeopardized if this matter were not stayed, and no basis exists at this time for delaying discovery." (Doc. 106 at 4-5.)

Defendants Vincent Steven Booth and Louise Q. Booth

Defendants Vincent Steven Booth and Louise Q. Booth ("Booth Defendants") oppose the moving Defendants' motion because (1) Ioane's Fifth Amendment rights will not be violated as he has already given testimony in the criminal action and was subsequently convicted; (2) further delay will prejudice the Booths because their tax liability remains unsatisfied and "because Mr. Ioane continues his misdeeds regarding the property" at issue; ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.