Securities and Exchange Commission v. Aletheia Research Management

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALETHEIA RESEARCH
MANAGEMENT,
Defendant,
and
PETER J. EICHLER, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-55887
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10692-JFW-RZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-55887
Peter J. Eichler, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting the
Securities Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) motion for monetary remedies in its
civil enforcement action alleging violations of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. SEC v. First Pac. Bancorp,
142 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1998) (disgorgement); Fed. Election Comm’n v.
Furgatch, 869 F.2d 1256, 1258 (9th Cir. 1989) (civil penalty). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disgorgement of
$1,655,923 and relying on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s expert in
setting the disgorgement amount. See SEC v. JT Wallenbrock & Assocs., 440 F.3d
1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he district court has broad equity powers to order
the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains obtained through the violation of federal
securities laws” and “broad discretion in calculating the amount to be disgorged.”
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting the civil penalty
equal to the disgorgement amount. See 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)(B) (authorizing civil
penalties equal to the amount of pecuniary gains as a result of securities
violations); 15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)(2) (same).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-55887
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --