FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. CONSUMER ADVOCATES GROUP EXPERTS, LLC, CV 12-04736 DDP (CWx). (2012)
Court: District Court, C.D. California
Number: infdco20120712772
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER'S MOTION TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT OF GENERAL COUNSEL [Docket No. 21] DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge. Presently before the court is Temporary Receiver Michael A. Grassmueck's Motion for Order Approving Employment of General Counsel ("Motion"). Defendants have not filed any opposition to the Motion. The court has authority pursuant to its inherent equitable powers to authorize the Receiver to employ counsel. See SEC v. Capital Consultants, LLC , 397 F.3d 733 , 738 (9th
Summary: ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER'S MOTION TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT OF GENERAL COUNSEL [Docket No. 21] DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge. Presently before the court is Temporary Receiver Michael A. Grassmueck's Motion for Order Approving Employment of General Counsel ("Motion"). Defendants have not filed any opposition to the Motion. The court has authority pursuant to its inherent equitable powers to authorize the Receiver to employ counsel. See SEC v. Capital Consultants, LLC , 397 F.3d 733 , 738 (9th ..
More
ORDER GRANTING RECEIVER'S MOTION TO APPROVE EMPLOYMENT OF GENERAL COUNSEL [Docket No. 21]
DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.
Presently before the court is Temporary Receiver Michael A. Grassmueck's Motion for Order Approving Employment of General Counsel ("Motion"). Defendants have not filed any opposition to the Motion.
The court has authority pursuant to its inherent equitable powers to authorize the Receiver to employ counsel. See SEC v. Capital Consultants, LLC, 397 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2005) ("`[A] district court's power to supervise an equity receivership and to determine the appropriate action to be taken in the administration of the receivership is extremely broad.'" (quoting SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 1986))).
For the reasons set forth in the Motion, the court finds that the requested employment of counsel is appropriate to administration of the receivership. The court therefore GRANTS the Receiver's Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
