From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S.E.C. v. Metropolis Holdings

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 25, 2006
182 F. App'x 714 (9th Cir. 2006)

Opinion

Argued and Submitted May 18, 2006.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

James A. Howell, Esq., Securities & Exchange Commission, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Catherine A. Broderick, Attorney, Securities & Exchange Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Mario Disalvo, Law Offices of Mario Disalvo, Fresno, CA, pro se.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-05538-AWI.

Before: B. FLETCHER, KOZINSKI and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Because the district court properly determined that the retainer lacked the defining characteristics of a true retainer, see SEC v. Interlink Data Network of Los Angeles, Inc., 77 F.3d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Baranowski v. State Bar of California, 24 Cal.3d 153, 164 n. 4, 154 Cal.Rptr. 752, 593 P.2d 613 (1979)), and because the court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the hourly rate or the number of hours Mario DiSalvo was entitled to be compensated for, see Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 907 (9th Cir.2002), the district court's orders are AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

S.E.C. v. Metropolis Holdings

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 25, 2006
182 F. App'x 714 (9th Cir. 2006)
Case details for

S.E.C. v. Metropolis Holdings

Case Details

Full title:SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff--Appellee, v. METROPOLIS…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 25, 2006

Citations

182 F. App'x 714 (9th Cir. 2006)

Citing Cases

Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Earle

The misstatement or omission complained of must be misleading; in the case of an omission, silence, absent a…

Sanders v. Realreal, Inc.

However, Plaintiffs cannot avoid the strictures of the Rule 9(b) requirement by conveniently "scissor[ing]…