Securities and Exchange Commission v. Perryman
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10985
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Perryman, Judge Willis denied Perryman’s requested stay but extended her deadline to respond to the complaint.
Laura Tyler Perryman must continue defending the SEC’s civil proceeding rather than pause it during her criminal appeal, but her deadline to answer or move to dismiss was extended to September 17, 2024.
What happened
In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Laura Tyler Perryman, Laura Tyler Perryman asked to pause the civil case, including her deadline to answer and discovery, while she appealed her criminal conviction. The Securities and Exchange Commission opposed the request.
The court applied six factors for deciding whether to pause a civil case during a related criminal matter. The identical facts favored a pause, but Perryman’s completed trial, conviction, and sentencing, the SEC’s interest in moving forward, and the unknown length of the appeal weighed against one. The remaining factors did not clearly favor either side.
The court denied the motion to stay. Because of an upcoming argument concerning Perryman’s release while appealing and a possible surrender into custody, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis extended Perryman’s deadline to answer or move to dismiss from September 3 to September 17, 2024.
The detailed version
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Perryman · No. 1:23-cv-10985
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 30, 2024
Background
Laura Tyler Perryman moved to stay, or pause, the civil enforcement proceeding brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. She sought to stay both her deadline to answer the complaint and discovery while she appealed her criminal conviction. The SEC opposed the motion.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may pause a civil proceeding when the interests of justice require it. For a stay related to a parallel criminal matter, it considered six factors: the overlap between the cases; the status of the criminal case; the SEC’s interest in proceeding quickly and any prejudice from delay; Perryman’s interests and burdens; the interests of the courts; and the public interest.
The first factor favored a stay because the parties agreed that the civil and criminal cases involved identical facts. The second and fourth factors weighed against a stay. Perryman argued that her Fifth Amendment protection against compelled self-incrimination would force her either to testify and potentially provide information usable by the Department of Justice or to refuse to testify and risk an unfavorable inference in the civil case. The court stated that her privilege remained available while her appeal was pending, but that she had no absolute right to avoid choosing between testifying in the civil case and asserting the privilege. It also concluded that the pending criminal appeal, by itself, did not justify pausing the civil case after Perryman had already been tried, convicted, and sentenced.
The third factor also weighed against a stay. The court considered the SEC’s interest in promptly carrying out its responsibility to oversee the securities markets and the unknown timeline of Perryman’s appeal. The fifth and sixth factors did not conclusively favor either side.
Ruling
The court denied Perryman’s motion to stay the civil proceeding. It separately extended her deadline to answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss from September 3, 2024, to September 17, 2024. The court cited a scheduled September 3 argument in the Second Circuit concerning Perryman’s request for release while appealing and the possibility that she would surrender into custody.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.