Securities and Exchange Commission v. Boucher et al

1
20-cv-01650-DMS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff/Garnishor,
vs.
MARK J. BOUCHER; STRATEGIC
WEALTH ADVISOR GROUP
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant,
and
THE VANGUARD GROUP, and its
successors or assigns,
Garnishee.
Case No. 3:20-cv-01650-DMS-MSB
ORDER REQUIRING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; and
DENYING MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Pending before the Court are Defendant Mark Boucher’s claim for exemption from
garnishment and motion to dissolve writs of garnishment. (See ECF Nos. 96, 99.) This
matter was heard on March 23, 2026. (ECF No. 104.) Attorney Michael Roessner
appeared for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and
Defendant appeared pro se. (Id.)
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:20-cv-01650-DMS-MSB Document 105 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 2

2
20-cv-01650-DMS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
In his briefing and at the hearing, Defendant argued that the exemptions for (1)
receipt of and property traceable to “a payment . . . on account of personal bodily injury,”
11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(11)(C), and (2) “an award of damages or a settlement arising out of
personal injury . . . to the extent necessary for the support of the judgment debtor and the
spouse and dependents of the judgment debtor,” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 704.140, are
applicable because his brokerage accounts are in part the product of a settlement arising
from a “hit-and-run” case in which he was a party. (ECF No. 96, at 1, 7.) In light of this
representation, the Court ORDERS Defendant to provide evidence that he received a
payment on account of personal bodily injury and that such money was placed into his
brokerage accounts no later than May 4, 2026.
II. MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Defendant previously requested that the Court appoint an attorney because he is “a
layman,” “indigent” and has cognitive and comprehensive deficiencies. (ECF No. 99, at
2.) The Court denied his motion. (See ECF No. 103, at 3.) Defendant reraised his motion
at the hearing, arguing various medical ailments made it difficult for him to present his
case. While the Court appreciates Defendant’s arguments, the scope of the supplemental
briefing is narrow, and Defendant has shown a sufficient level of comprehension via his
filings and presentation at the hearing. Thus, the Court finds appointing counsel is not
necessary and DENIES Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 24, 2026
_________________________________
Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
United States District Judge
Case 3:20-cv-01650-DMS-MSB Document 105 Filed 03/24/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 2