Telephonic Procedural Conference - S-21355A-25-0104 - Patrick B. Horsman et al. - Sep 18, 2026

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 21 min 7 agenda items transcribed 1 day ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose of this status conference and who are the parties involved?

Mark Pranny 0:00

Okay, let's go on the record. This is the time scheduled for a status conference. in the matter of Patrick B. Horseman and integrated C B D. L L C The docket number is S dash Two one three five five A Dash twenty five dash zero one zero four. I'm administrative law judge Mark Pranny. I will be presiding over this matter today. We will begin by taking appearances for the record, starting with counsel for the securities division.

Cynthia Thomas 0:37

Thank you, Your Honor. This is Cynthia Thomas on behalf of the security division.

Mark Pranny 0:42

Good morning, Miss Thomas. And appearing for the respondents.

Joe Adams 0:47

Good morning, Your Honor, Joe Adams and Taryn Gallup from Snell and Wilmer on behalf of the respondents.

Mark Pranny 0:54

Good

Joe Adams 0:54

morning, Mr. Adams.

Mark Pranny 0:55

Um My understanding is that the proceedings in this matter consisted of multiple status conferences While there's been some overlapping somewhat overlapping civil litigation that has taken place. Uh, first in Maricopa County Superior Court and now in the Arizona Court of Appeals. Uh I guess my question is what is the current status of this parallel litigation and I guess secondly how how do the parties want to proceed to in this matter? Um I guess Mr. Adams you might be the the person with the most information regarding the other litigation. So I'll start with you.

Joe Adams 1:40

Sure. Happy to address that, Your Honor. Um you you're correct. Um there is a um a related civil litigation going on. We submit it is practically identical, it raises the same claims, is based on the same facts. And because of the overlap, um, we have not proceeded with the hearing. We wanted to see how the superior court case would turn out. Um there was a jury trial earlier this year in March. And the jury found in favor of the defendants who are the respondents in this case. And so in light of that, we have been working with Miss Thomas and her colleagues to see what, if anything, remains of the case. Um, as we were having those discussions, the parties in the civil litigation uh filed a notice of appeal and so that matter is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Joe Adams 2:26

Uh the current status is uh there's been ex an extension of time recently obtained. For the opening brief to be submitted in early October. And so the appeal is in its early stages. We expect that an opening brief will be submitted in October. Um, best guess is that the briefing will be ongoing throughout the rest of the calendar year. And we expect that there would be a oral argument and a decision sometime next year. Uh but that's the current status.

Mark Pranny 2:56

Okay. Um Uh and Mr. Adams, what would be the respondent's recommendation for how the administrative matters should proceed at this point?

Joe Adams 3:07

Uh, Your Honor, we submit that uh we should have another status hearing in a few months to check in. Um there's a fair amount of uncertainty regarding what if anything would be the subject of a hearing. Um yeah, the the uh because the jury found in favor of my clients, we submit um that the matters have essentially been decided. Um I know that Miss Thomas and her colleagues have a different view, um but given that we're waiting for the Court of Appeals to do its work and to see w what if anything remains of the the jury verdict. Um, we submit that this matter should remain state and that we should have a another uh another status conference in a few months. You know, looking forward when it is eventually decided, uh we think that before there's any sort of hearing that takes place, which would require a lot of resources from everyone, um, that there are probably motions to be decided by your honor or the ALJ presiding.

How does the court describe the current status of the parallel civil litigation?

Joe Adams 4:01

Um, we think that there are issues of collateral stoppel, we think that res judicata. We think that a lot of these matters have and will been decided by the court and that would be improper for this body to relitigate those matters that have already been decided. And so th that's a preview of what we we would argue in the future, but given the uncertainty and given that there are some steps that need to take place before hearing. We submit that we should schedule another status conference in a few months.