Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2023

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Da Silva

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:22-cv-10534
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCriminal
In one sentence

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Da Silva, Judge Torres granted the Government’s intervention motion, stayed the action, and allowed continued service attempts.

Who this affects

The Government was allowed to join the SEC’s civil action. The SEC may continue trying to serve Defendants Da Silva and Tacuri Fajardo, while the civil action is paused until further order. The parties must report within 14 days after the related criminal case is resolved.

What happened

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Da Silva, the Government asked to join the SEC’s civil case and pause it while a related criminal case, United States v. Francisley da Silva, was completed. The criminal case is also before Judge Torres.

Counsel for three defendants agreed to the Government’s requests, while the SEC took no position on intervention and asked to keep trying to serve Da Silva and Tacuri Fajardo. The Government did not oppose that request.

Judge Torres granted the Government’s motion to intervene and stayed the civil action until further order. She also granted the SEC permission to continue trying to serve Da Silva and Tacuri Fajardo, and ordered the parties to file a joint status letter within 14 days after the criminal case is resolved.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Da Silva · No. 1:22-cv-10534
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Feb. 22, 2023

Background

On February 14, 2023, the Government moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to intervene in the SEC’s civil enforcement action and to stay, or pause, the entire case until the related criminal case, United States v. Francisley da Silva, No. 22 Cr. 622, was completed. The criminal case was also before Judge Torres.

The opinion states that Da Silva was in custody in Brazil based on his alleged involvement in the criminal conduct described in the Government’s motion and had not yet been served with the SEC’s complaint. Counsel for Ramon Antonio Perez Arias, Juan Antonio Tacuri Fajardo, and Jose Ramiro Coronado Reyes advised that those defendants consented to intervention and a complete stay. The SEC took no position on the Government’s motion but asked to continue attempting to serve Da Silva and Tacuri Fajardo during any stay. The Government did not object.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that intervention was proper under Rule 24(a)(2), which permits a party to join a case when it has an interest that could be impaired and the existing parties may not adequately protect that interest. The court also stated that intervention would alternatively be proper under Rule 24(b), which allows a court to permit intervention when the proposed intervenor’s claims or defenses share a legal or factual question with the main action.

The court found that the Government had a clear interest in preventing discovery in the civil case from being used to avoid the more limited discovery available in the criminal case. It also found that the Government’s interest differed from the SEC’s and could not be adequately protected by the existing parties. The significant factual and legal overlap between the SEC complaint and the criminal indictment further supported intervention and a stay.

Ruling

Judge Analisa Torres granted the Government’s motion to intervene and stayed the action until further order of the court. She also granted the SEC’s request to continue attempting to serve Da Silva and Tacuri Fajardo. The parties must file a joint status letter within 14 days after the criminal case’s disposition. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 30.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.