Traffic Monsoon’s injunction appeal appears to have hit a roadblock.
The issue at hand is the role of the Receivership and to what extent the Receiver can represent Traffic Monsoon in the appeals process.
Last October the Receiver requested permission to file an amicus brief in the Traffic Monsoon appeal case.
Permission was granted, and in her brief the Receiver essentially argued that seeing as the appeal Scoville filed on behalf of Traffic Monsoon was not approved by the Receiver, Traffic Monsoon itself was therefore an improper party in the appeal.
In the District Court of Utah, who are responsible for appointing the Receiver, the question now is whether or not the Receiver pulling Traffic Monsoon out of the appeal process would deny Traffic Monsoon, as an entity, due process rights.
The reason this is an issue in the District Court and not the Tenth Circuit, is because what the Receiver can and can’t do is governed by the District Court’s order appointing the Receiver.
In light of the roadblock (Scoville naturally opposes the Receiver’s assertion that Traffic Monsoon is not a proper party), the District Court
is considering a further amendment to the most recent order appointing the receiver to clarify the receiver’s duties and powers in relation to the litigation between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Traffic Monsoon and Charles Scoville.
The SEC, Charles Scoville and the Receiver have been ordered to submit briefings on the matter by February 2nd, 2018.
Presumably a decision on the matter will be made shortly after.
While I can see why the Receiver is pushing back against Traffic Monsoon being included in the appeal (the Receivership has after all been given complete control of the company), at the same time it’d be great if they could just get on with the appeal.
I know, I know… the courts don’t work like that and appeals take forever to sort out. Wishful thinking hey.