The following excerpt is from Sec. v. Kuipers, D.C. No. 2:00-cv-00823-JCC, No. 09-36016 (9th Cir. 2010):
A decision to defer to the expertise of a receiver does not automatically constitute an abuse of discretion, especially given the deference accorded for the supervision of a receivership. See SEC v. Hardy, 803 F.2d 1034, 1038 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, there is no evidence that the court acted arbitrarily. Further, these Investors were given an opportunity to show why a hearing on their claims was necessary, but ultimately agreed with the Receiver that it was not. The district court was thus well within its discretion to use summary proceedings to determine appropriate relief rather than plenary proceedings. See id. at 1040.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.