About a week before oral arguments were heard in the original preliminary injunction appeal, Charles Scoville filed a second appeal.
Following the filing of a motion requesting both appeals be merged or his second appeal stayed, it appears the plan is to further delay proceedings.
Scoville’s second appeal was filed against an order amending the Receiver’s role in the first appeal.
Despite the order simply clarifying that the Receiver isn’t to represent Traffic Monsoon as an entity in the appeal, Scoville has used it as a platform to file a new appeal against the preliminary injunction.
This would see Scoville present the same arguments that lost the preliminary injunction hearing and argued again in the original appeal.
With a decision on the original appeal pending, on April 4th Scoville filed a motion requesting both appeals be consolidated or alternatively, that his second appeal be stayed pending a decision on the first.
In the first instance I believe a decision would be put on hold, pending another round of already argued arguments.
Alternatively if the second appeal is stayed, whatever decision is reached will not be enforced until the second appeal (which remember is the same arguments) then plays out.
With no new arguments raised, it should be obvious that the second appeal is a waste of time and resources.
In their April 5th response to Scoville’s motion, the SEC wrote;
It is far from clear that the Defendants should be able to pursue the New Appeal as a mechanism to raise “the same legal issues” that the parties litigated in the district court in connection with an earlier order that indisputably appointed the current receiver.
In light of the foregoing jurisdictional issues (which have not been briefed), the Commission believes that it would not be advisable to consolidate the two appeals.
Instead, this Court should stay any proceedings in connection with the New Appeal pending resolution of the Original Appeal; this would allow the Court to issue its opinion in the Original Appeal without having to address the jurisdictional issues.
If I’m understanding correctly, the “jurisdictional issues” referenced pertain to the Receivership – which would be an entirely moot point should the first appeal fail.
As the SEC affirm, the amended order didn’t appoint the Receivership. Thus an interlocutory appeal based on the amended order to challenge the Receivership is baseless.
Still, there’s nothing stopping Scoville from filing an appeal and further wasting resources and time.
And seeing as it’s already been filed, the issue now is how Scoville’s second appeal should play out.