Telephonic Procedural Conference - S-21380A-25-0263 - Kishlay Anand et al.

meeting

Arizona Corporation Commission 18 min 8 agenda items transcribed 3 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: agenda · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the purpose and docket of the procedural conference for Kishley Anand et al.?

Mark Prenny 0:00

Okay, let's go on the record at this time. This is the time scheduled for a procedural conference in the matter of Kishley Anand et al. The docket number is S-21380A-25-0263. I'm Administrative Law Judge Mark Prenny. I will be presiding over this matter today. We will begin by taking appearances officially for the record, starting with counsel for the Securities Division.

Jeremy Horn 0:29

Good morning, Your Honor. Jeremy Horn. I've got the series vision.

Mark Prenny 0:32

Good morning, Mr. Horn. Appearing for Kishley Anon, please.

Paul Roschka 0:40

Yes, good morning, Mr. Preeni. This is Paul Roschka and Olivia Rafferty on behalf of Kishley Anon and Preeti Singh. We're with the law firm of Jennings Howell, Kelleher McLeod Waterfall in Phoenix.

Mark Prenny 0:55

Thank you. And appearing for Timothy Kozak.

Jordan Wolfe 1:00

Morning, Your Honor. This is Jordan Wolfe of Wolfe Law, appearing for the Kozaks.

Mark Prenny 1:04

Morning. I know there's a pending motion that's been filed by Mr. Wolfe regarding the Kozaks answer. Mr. Wolfe, I'll start with you. Would you like to speak regarding the motion?

Jordan Wolfe 1:20

It's just an unopposed motion. Mr. Horne did respond after I filed it that he's willing to stipulate to the extension. And it's as a result of a potential conflict that has arisen that obviously need to evaluate whether I can still represent the COZATs in this matter and trying to get a resolution to that as quickly as possible to inform the court whether I'd be still representing or having to withdraw.

1:49

Okay.

Mark Prenny 1:50

Mr. Horne, is there anything you'd like to say on the record regarding that motion?

Jeremy Horn 1:54

Nothing additional,

Mark Prenny 1:58

Your

Paul Roschka 1:58

Honor.

Who are the attorneys appearing for the parties and what firms represent them?

Paul Roschka 1:59

I'm sorry. This is Paul Roschka. Can

Mark Prenny 2:02

I speak, please? Yes. I just wanted to go back to Mr. Horne. I didn't quite hear what you said. I'm sorry, Your Honor. Nothing additional. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Roschka, please.

Paul Roschka 2:16

Thank you. Well, given the motion that Mr. Wolf addressed, I personally think we should not go forward this morning until that issue with regard to representation is resolved. I don't know whether Mr. Wolf will be in the case or not in the case. If he's not in the case, there will be substitute counsel. Those calendars have to be considered, I think, I don't think we can make any progress with regard to scheduling this morning.

Mark Prenny 2:51

I appreciate your thought and I'll go around to the parties. Mr. Wolf, what's your opinion on Mr. Roscoe's proposition?

Jordan Wolfe 2:59

I don't necessarily disagree, but obviously going to defer to the court what the court prefers to do. But if there's a short continuance of this, I don't have an objection to that to work through the ethical issues because of our setting dates and the court may be having to redo this all over again if I'm forced to withdraw.

Mark Prenny 3:20

And Mr. Wolf, to confirm, I believe you had requested two weeks in your motion. Is that still the time frame you're looking

Jordan Wolfe 3:27

at? I believe that is accurate.

Mark Prenny 3:32

Okay. Mr. Horne, what's your opinion regarding Mr. Roscoe's proposition?

Jeremy Horn 3:38

Your Honor, I respectfully submit I think we can go forward.

What unopposed motion did Mr. Wolfe file and why is a continuance being considered?

Jeremy Horn 3:41

I think given your calendar, Your Honor, that it's so kind of booked already. Wait, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm

Unknown 3:48

sorry. Wait, Mr. Horn, I'm sorry. You

Jeremy Horn 3:52

were

Unknown 3:52

totally cutting out. Can you start that over? I got like every other word of what you started to say. I'm sorry.

Jeremy Horn 3:59

Sure, no problem. I apologize. Your Honor, respectfully, I submit we can go forward as is, given your calendar is as full as it is. I think any date, any hearing date will be set so far out that... Any sort of issues with new council coming on board can be addressed. There will be plenty of time for that to be addressed down the road.

Mark Prenny 4:25

I want to note in the answer filed by Mr. Roschka, I believe he was proposing that we were looking at a lengthy hearing term to begin if I remember correctly, June of 2027. Mr. Horne, what's your take on how much time we might need for a hearing and when are you thinking that we should be scheduling something for?

Jeremy Horn 5:01

I haven't quite nailed down exactly how long the divisions case might last, but I can imagine it would last more than a week or so, at least for the divisions part. I don't know if Ms. Orozco anticipates calling a significant amount of witnesses or having a lot of documentary evidence.