Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Topworth International Ltd.

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION; THE COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs, and NEIL ADVANI, aka, Anil Advani, Intervenor-Appellant, v. TOPWORTH INTERNATIONAL, LTD, aka, Seal A; LIDA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL DATA, INC., aka, Seal B; WORTH FINANCIAL DATA, INC., aka, Seal C, Defendants-Appellees, v. RICHARD V. HOEGH, Receiver-Appellee. No. 97-56590 D.C. No. CV-94-01256-AAH COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION; THE COMMISSIONER OF CORPORATIONS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, aka, Seal 2, Plaintiffs, v. TOPWORTH INTERNATIONAL, LTD, aka, Seal B; WORTH FINANCIAL DATA, INC., aka, Seal C; FRED A. WONG, Defendants-Appellants, v. RICHARD B. HOEGH, Receiver-Appellee, and LIDA INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL DATA, INC., Defendant. No. 98-55673 D.C. No. CV-94-01256-AAH United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Filed March 23, 2000 Before: Robert Boochever, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.
ORDER         The slip opinion filed June 28, 1999, is amended as follows:
        At slip opinion page 7010, line 8, end of paragraph, add this footnote:

        1. Because Advani was brought into the proceedings by the Receiver's notice indicating that Advani would forfeit his right to recover anything from Topworth unless he filed a claim, and by the later schedule requiring him to file a written objection or waive it, this case is distinguishable from Marino v. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) (per curiam) (nonparties did not have standing to appeal consent decree where they         had not moved to intervene in state court). See Keith v. Volpe, 118 F.3d 13886, 1391 n.7 (9th Cir. 1997) (nonparty may appeal when haled into court).