United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
For SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff: Brian Fitzsimons, U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Washington, DC; Devon Anthony Brown, U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION - Washington D.C., Washington, DC; Charles D. Stodghill, U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Washington, DC.
RYAN W KOESTER, Defendant, Pro se, Brownsburg, IN.
ENTRY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendant Ryan W. Koester (" Mr. Koester" ) filed his Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 30) seeking judgment in his favor on the claims brought against him by the Securities and Exchange Commission (" SEC" ). The SEC filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 35) seeking judgment against both Mr. Koester and Rykoworks Capital Group, LLC (" Rykoworks" ). For the reasons set forth below, SEC's Motion as to Mr. Koester is GRANTED and Mr. Koester's Motion is DENIED.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides tat summary judgment is appropriate if " the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc.,
476 F.3d 487, 489-90 (7th Cir. 2007). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews " the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, " [a] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial." Hemsworth, 476 F.3d at 490 (citation omitted). " In much the same way that a court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment, nor is it permitted to conduct a paper trial on the merits of a claim." Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Finally, " neither the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties nor the existence of some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Chiaramonte v. Fashion Bed Grp., Inc., 129 F.3d 391, 395 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
An adverse inference from a party's assertion of the Fifth Amendment is permissible in a civil case, but is not required. Thompson v. City of Chi., 722 F.3d 963, 976 (7th Cir. 2013). However, an adverse inference alone is not sufficient to make a finding as a matter of law and additional evidence is needed to corroborate an adverse inference. Id.
A. Summary Judgment Procedure
As an initial matter, the Court must address deficiencies in Mr. Koester's Response, and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. As mentioned above, summary judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. A movant seeking summary judgment must show " that there is no genuine dispute as to any of the material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A party must support its factual positions by citing to " particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, or declarations, stipulations . . . admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that cited materials " do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce evidence to support the fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B). An affidavit submitted with a motion ...