Legal Opinion
Securities & Exchange Commission v. Spinosa
District Court, S.D. Florida
Decided June 30, 2014No. Case No. 13-62066-CIVPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
KENNETH A. MARRA, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (DE 9). Plaintiff responded. (DE 13). Defendant did not file a reply, and the time to do so has expired. The Court has considered the briefing and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
I. Background
This case relates to the Ponzi scheme perpetrated by now-convicted Scott Roth-stein (“Rothstein”). The operative Amended Complaint alleges that the scheme was perpetrated through the sale of fake discounted settlements which Roth-stein ran through his law firm…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Reves v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. RPM Int'l, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
- United States Securities & Exchange Commission v. UstianDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2017
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. ColdicuttDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2022