Procedural Conference - S-21409A-26-0252 - ATLATL Group LLC, et al.

Arizona Corporation Commission · · More Arizona Corporation Commission meetings

View original source →

Agenda

Agenda: https://azcc.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?clip_id=7176&embedded=1

Transcript

Download: Text · SRT
AI TRANSCRIPT

This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person — it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.

[0:00] I've got 1001, so we'll go ahead and go on the record. Good morning, everyone. This is the time set for a procedural conference in the matter of A-T-L-A-T-L group L-L-C-E-L,
[0:14] docket number S21409A260252. I'm administrative law judge Chris Nichols, and I've been assigned to preside over this matter.
[0:25] Let's get started by taking appearances beginning with the Securities Division.
[0:30] Good morning, Your Honor.
[0:32] Resarta Mata for Arizona Corporation Commission Securities Division.
[0:35] Good morning.
[0:38] Is Mr. Browning here today?
[0:41] Yes, Your Honor.
[0:43] Good morning, Mr. Browning.
[0:44] Good morning.
[0:45] And will you also be representing Riviera penthouses today?
[0:49] Yes, I will.
[0:50] And we'll get into that in just a moment.
[0:52] there's some requirements that need to be met in order for you to represent
[0:56] review our penthouses. Thank you. Thank you.
[0:59] And Mr. Gutierrez.
[1:03] All right.
[1:04] Will you be representing ATL, ATL group LLC and destination yachts ink today?
[1:10] Sure.
[1:10] Sure.
[1:14] And is Ms. Gutierrez planning on attending today?
[1:20] Your Honor, I didn't realize she had to be here.
[1:22] that that's my fault, I didn't know she had a beer.
[1:25] She's not officer of the company.
[1:26] I thought this was just for the company itself.
[1:29] Understood.
[1:30] We can schedule if you need to talk to her, though, you know.
[1:33] Okay.
[1:34] Well, I guess we'll play by ear and see if that seems like it is an necessity.
[1:43] All right.
[1:44] So as I said, as a preliminary matter, we just need to make sure
[1:48] whether the entity respondents can be represented
[1:50] by by Mr. Browning, Mr. Gutierrez. So as to I guess I'll start with Mr. Gutierrez. I'll
[1:58] start with ATLATL Group. What is your relationship to ATL, ATL Group LLC?
[2:05] I am the manager of both entities.
[2:09] Okay. Are you have you been authorized by ATLATL Group LLC to represent it in this proceeding?
[2:15] Yes, sir.
[2:16] Have you, are you receiving any, any separate or additional compensation for representing
[2:24] ATLATEL group LLC today?
[2:28] All right.
[2:29] And is legal representation of ATLATEL group LLC or primary duty to the company?
[2:38] And based on your answers, you are authorized to represent ATLATEL group LLC in this proceeding.
[2:44] And now we kind of have to run through the same thing with respect to destination yachts.
[2:50] So what is your relationship to destination yachts ink?
[2:53] I'm the manager of destination yachts ink and my title is President.
[2:59] Okay. And are you receiving any separate or additional compensation for representing destination yachts ink in this proceeding?
[3:06] Has destination yachts ink authorized you to represent it in this proceeding?
[3:11] And is providing legal representation to destination yachts in your primary duty to the company.
[3:18] Okay. Based on your answers, you may represent destination yachts in this proceeding.
[3:23] Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
[3:27] And Mr. Browning.
[3:29] Same questions as to review your penhouses. What is your relationship to review your penhouses LLC?
[3:35] Member Manager.
[3:37] Has review our penthouses authorized each who represented in this proceeding?
[3:41] Yes, you are.
[3:41] Are you receiving any separate additional compensation for representing review our penthouses in this proceeding?
[3:47] No, you are.
[3:48] All right.
[3:49] And is providing legal representation advice to review our penthouses LLC or primary duty to the company?
[3:55] No, you are all right.
[3:56] All right.
[3:56] Thank you, Mr. Browning.
[3:57] Based on your answers, you may represent review our penthouses LLC in this proceeding.
[4:04] All right.
[4:07] Moving on, I do see that there was a demand for a jury trial, so I'll turn to you, Mr. Gutierrez.
[4:16] Would you, a tail, a tail group or destination yachts like an opportunity to file a written brief in support of your demand for a jury trial?
[4:26] Yes, sir.
[4:29] And how long do you think that you might need in order to prepare and file that?
[4:35] ask a question?
[4:36] Of course.
[4:37] Not being a attorney myself is it unreasonable to request six months of time to
[4:44] debt or is that?
[4:45] Six months seems like a bit more than I think is necessary.
[4:53] I do understand that as someone who's not an attorney, you can take a bit long.
[5:00] I'd like to do research and prepare a brief properly.
[5:09] Why don't we table that for now? Why don't we see
[5:12] what the security's division thinks about how much time they would suggest and then we can circle
[5:18] back and see if that seems like it would be enough time for you and the companies. Does that make sense? Okay.
[5:26] And just before I let you go, would you also like to schedule oral argument on that issue
[5:33] on the, you were in the company's demand for a jury trial?
[5:37] Yes, the question will be very much.
[5:39] Sure.
[5:40] So, in terms of, in terms of getting through this issue, you know, both parties ought to have
[5:45] an opportunity to present their argument on it.
[5:48] And there are, I guess, two different things that we can do, and we can do both.
[5:53] you can file a written brief, and we can, alternatively, or in addition to that, we can schedule
[6:00] oral argument, which would be just scheduling a proceeding, just like this one, where we
[6:08] show up, either in person or telephonically, and I give both of the parties, all of the parties
[6:13] and opportunity to kind of argue their points. So, if you're happy just filing something,
[6:20] And you don't feel the need to present your arguments orally, then we can skip that, but if you were the companies would like that opportunity, then I'll all know that.
[6:29] Sure, I think we'd like to do both.
[6:36] All right.
[6:36] Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
[6:38] And just so we're dotting eyes and crossing T's.
[6:41] Is that the position of both yourself and the companies are representing today?
[6:45] Yeah.
[6:46] All right.
[6:46] Thank you, Mr. Gutierrez.
[6:50] Mr. Browning, same question.
[6:52] Would you and or review our pen houses like to file something in the record on the demand for jury trial in order to
[7:02] avail me of of those arguments.
[7:05] Yes, sir.
[7:05] Okay.
[7:06] Do you have any suggestion in terms of how long you might need?
[7:12] No, but I'm open to recommendation from the court.
[7:15] Okay.
[7:15] Thank you.
[7:16] Would you like oral argument as well?
[7:18] Yes, sir.
[7:19] Okay.
[7:20] Thank you, Mr. Browning.
[7:29] All right, Mr. Petay.
[7:33] Thank you, Runner.
[7:34] I believe Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Browning confuse the fact that they're preparing
[7:40] me to settle a hearing date today and not about hearing about the request for the jury trial,
[7:51] however. The division's position about their request is to wait for their motion, which would
[7:59] no more than 30 days from today, and we will reply to that motion in writing for sure.
[8:09] And if still in that motion, both of the respondents request an oral argument, we agree
[8:17] with that.
[8:18] Thank you, Ms. Mensei.
[8:20] Is there any reason that if I provide a response with 60 days that that would be
[8:35] We don't have any problem with that, just I have a hearing in October, so maybe we need to work around those dates not to overlap the oral argument with my hearing dates.
[8:46] I understand,
[8:49] I take the securities division would also like oral argument if the issues
[8:52] briefed.
[8:56] They choose to brief and to write everything in writing, definitely our position is to go
[9:02] with in writing, so because it's a matter of, we now all know in Arizona that it is
[9:07] a EFG-America case that is pending at the Supreme Court, so we're waiting for that decision
[9:13] in order to have our ultimate opinion and position as a security division,
[9:20] and there is another
[9:20] pending before this commission in, I believe, in next spring for the EFG America case.
[9:31] So either way will work for us between those days when the Supreme Court will release its arguments
[9:38] an opinion or 60 days will work, but I believe that will be based on those conditions.
[9:46] So what the Supreme Court will decide if the arguments from the other party in writing
[9:52] will be suffice and will be enough to roll on that motion and as well.
[10:00] What will happen after the EFG-America to the Supreme Court?
[10:06] But either way, I'm open for what the response will decide in right and or even for our
[10:12] oral argument, just as I said, not to overlap with my hearings that I have in December and
[10:18] in October.
[10:20] Thank you.
[10:23] To some understanding the division's position properly, is the division inclined
[10:31] to wait to brief the issue until the Arizona Supreme Court issues its opinion in any FG?
[10:42] Not necessarily. Either way, we will be able to respond to the motion that the other
[10:48] part of will ask for the jury trial,
[10:53] but my position was that our arguments will heavily be
[11:00] on what the Supreme Court will decide on that case, but either way we'll be able to respond
[11:07] to reply to the motion for a jury trial from the response, so will not affect our reply
[11:14] to the court.
[11:16] Thank you.
[11:16] And in terms of the division's response, is 30 days after the motion in support of the jury
[11:22] trial, 30 days after that is filed, is that a sufficient amount of time for the division
[11:26] to file a response?
[11:27] That's what we're about, you know.
[11:29] All
[11:33] right.
[11:35] Mr. Gutierrez, I will circle back to you.
[11:38] Does 60 days sound like a reasonable amount of time
[11:42] for you to avail yourself of the applicable law on this issue
[11:47] and file a brief.
[11:49] Yes, sir.
[11:50] All right.
[11:52] So I think with all that said,
[11:54] I think I will give respondents 60 days
[12:00] to file motions in support of the demand for a jury trial.
[12:06] I'll have, I'll give the division in of a 30 days thereafter for a response.
[12:11] And then I'll give the response in additional 14 days after the division files
[12:17] that's response to file a reply brief in support of the motion for jury trial.
[12:22] And I will spell all that out in a procedural order that I'll issue shortly after this proceeding.
[12:29] I'll turn back to the Securities Division.
[12:32] Ms. Mitz, I have the parties had an opportunity to discuss potential hearing dates.
[12:39] Yes, Your Honor. So, before the hearing started,
[12:42] we discussed about the hearing dates to commence in September.
[12:49] And like the after the Labor Day, which in 2007 will be on September 6,
[12:54] So from September 7th we will be able to start the hearing for this matter.
[13:03] Right.
[13:05] And approximately how many days will the division need to present its case?
[13:09] We have at least five witnesses.
[13:11] So likely four to five days will be enough for the division to represent its matter in chief.
[13:17] It's getting chief.
[13:19] Thank you.
[13:20] And are there any dates starting on September 7th for the next few weeks there after that?
[13:26] that anyone at the security's vision would not be able to attend?
[13:33] I discussed with my team.
[13:36] There is no conflicts in scheduling after September.
[13:40] Great.
[13:43] I'm just going to check the calendar quickly to see how it looks in September 2027.
[13:56] It's looking pretty clear so we should be able to do those dates.
[14:01] Mr. Gutierrez, how does September 2027 starting after Labor Day on our rounds of
[14:10] September 7th?
[14:10] How does that sound to you and the companies you represent today?
[14:13] Yes, sure.
[14:13] That's fine.
[14:19] And how many witnesses do you and the companies plan to call?
[14:25] I don't have that answer right now on your honor, I wasn't prepared to answer that question.
[14:30] Sure.
[14:30] Do you have just some kind of idea off the top of your head?
[14:33] Nothing that I'm going to hold you to later, but just so we can kind of get a general sense of how long we might need.
[14:40] I would say four off the top of my head.
[14:47] All right.
[14:48] And as a non-aturnia, I know there may be difficult to answer, but do you have some idea of how long you might need to present your case in terms of
[14:57] We're listening the testimony from those witnessed.
[15:04] All right, thank you, Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Browning. September 27, the sound acceptable to you and review our
[15:17] and how many witnesses do you
[15:23] anticipate?
[15:26] I would estimate four as well.
[15:35] Any idea how long it might take to present your case and review your pen
[15:40] House's case in this matter?
[15:42] I would also guess about five days.
[15:49] All right, thank you, Mr. Browning.
[15:54] And Ms. Matai, how far in advance of the hearing should there be one,
[16:06] do we need to set
[16:07] the deadline for lists of witnesses and exhibits?
[16:11] Please, third of days, Yana.
[16:19] Mr. Gutierrez, thank you. Mr. Gutierrez, if you're not familiar with the process, prior to the hearing,
[16:27] there is a deadline set for the parties to exchange lists of the witnesses that they plan to call
[16:32] at hearing and also exchange the exhibits that they plan to introduce. Do you where the companies
[16:39] have a position on how far in advance of the hearing you would like to exchange those those lists
[16:45] of witnesses and exhibits? 30 days of sufficient.
[16:52] Thank you, Mr. Coutillers. And Mr. Browning,
[16:59] So the question is, how far in advance of the September 2027 hearing we would like to receive each other's list of who were calling to the stand?
[17:09] Correct, not only the list of who you plan on calling to testify but also to exchange the exhibits that anyone plans to use.
[17:22] I'm not in turn yet either.
[17:24] Is it reasonable to have that earlier than 30 days before?
[17:31] I don't know that it's unreasonable to have it any earlier.
[17:35] I think it just kind of depends on when.
[17:38] Did you have an alternative suggestion in terms of how far in advance?
[17:41] You'd like to disclose your list and receive a list of the other parties?
[17:48] Yeah, potentially.
[17:49] I don't know.
[17:49] Six months of advance.
[17:52] Okay.
[17:53] All right.
[17:53] Let's turn to the Securities Division and see what Ms.
[17:57] Mattay has to say.
[17:58] Thank you, Mr Browning.
[17:59] Thank you.
[18:01] Mr Browning, usually there are 30 days, 45 days, up to 9, 90 days in advance that we can
[18:07] exchange our exhibits and list of witnesses.
[18:11] So I don't know if this time frame 30 days up to 90 days may work for our rules.
[18:18] So it means that the security division would be agreeable to up to 90 days prior to the hearing?
[18:23] Yeah, we had cases that even,
[18:25] especially when we have prostate response, maybe 90 days will be feasible for both of their
[18:31] response to know what are our exhibits and list of witnesses and ourselves to know what
[18:37] are there, exhibits, and the list of witnesses.
[18:41] Thank you.
[18:43] I guess I'll turn back to Mr. Browning quickly.
[18:46] How does 90 days sound three months, so it's 90 days.
[18:49] That's good.
[18:54] Thank you, Mr. Browning.
[18:57] And Mr. Gutierrez, how about 90 days instead of 30?
[19:00] Does that sound acceptable?
[19:03] Thank you.
[19:08] All right.
[19:08] So I will make that a part of the scheduling order as well.
[19:12] So we will plan on if there is a hearing, depending on how the demand for
[19:18] jury trial issue goes.
[19:21] If there is an administrative hearing in this matter, then we will plan on September
[19:27] or 2027 starting on around September 7th in any event after a Labor Day, and we'll require
[19:34] that those list of witnesses in exhibits be exchanged at least 90 days before the hearing
[19:41] begins.
[19:43] Let's see if there's any other housekeeping that we need to go over.
[19:49] Ms. Matay, any other procedural issues that we need to address today before we adjourn?
[19:53] No, but I believe in the order we'll explain how many days the hearing will last.
[19:59] I believe.
[20:00] Yes, so I will set forth in the procedural order, the specific dates for the hearing. So given the lack of conflicts in September, and that at this point the parties are looking at, you know, potentially four to five days of peace, I think I'll probably do three full weeks. And then, you know, if we don't need those additional days, then we can vacate those as necessary.
[20:28] Thank you, sounds good.
[20:31] Mr. Gutierrez, any additional procedural issues that we need to discuss today before we adjourn?
[20:36] And there you are.
[20:37] Actually, and this is anything you need from Martha Gutierrez.
[20:43] No, I don't.
[20:45] Thank you.
[20:45] I don't think that I need anything from her.
[20:49] I believe my recollection is that she and Ms. Bintai, you can help me out here.
[20:53] She is named as a respondent as opposed to just as a respondent spouse.
[20:57] Is that correct?
[20:58] Yes, correct.
[21:01] And Mr. Gutierrez, although the rules do permit someone with your relationship to the entities
[21:08] to represent those entities in this case, you cannot represent her in this matter, so if
[21:14] she would like to be heard, then she doesn't need to appear at all future proceedings, but
[21:20] she is not required to.
[21:26] Mr. Browning.
[21:27] Any other procedural issues that you'd like to discuss today before we adjourn?
[21:31] No, thank you.
[21:31] Thank you.
[21:32] Mr. Browning.
[21:34] All right.
[21:35] Great.
[21:36] Well, I think I've got everything I need to issue a procedural order.
[21:39] I will set that deadline 60 days out for motions in support of the demand for jury
[21:45] trial.
[21:46] 30 days for response in another 14 days for reply.
[21:50] And then we'll schedule the hearing in September 20, 20, 27, based on what the parties agreed
[21:56] to here today.
[21:58] And with that I think we can go ahead and adjourn.
[22:01] Let's go off the record.
[22:02] Thank you.
[22:03] Thank you, everyone.
[22:04] Thank you.