Changeflow GovPing Courts & Legal SEC v. Park - Civil Penalty Enforcement Order
Priority review Enforcement Amended Final

SEC v. Park - Civil Penalty Enforcement Order

Favicon for www.courtlistener.com US District Court SDCA Docket Feed
Filed
Detected
Email

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the SEC's ex parte motion to enforce a civil penalty order under Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant Chang G. Park failed to respond to a show cause order by the January 23, 2026 deadline. The court ordered the defendant to pay the civil penalty assessed against him plus interest accrued pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3717. The case is now closed.

Why this matters

Registered entities subject to SEC administrative orders should ensure that any assessed civil penalties and interest are paid promptly. A failure to respond to a court show cause order in an SEC enforcement proceeding can result in automatic judicial enforcement of the underlying Commission order, as demonstrated here where the court enforced the penalty without a responsive appearance.

AI-drafted from the source document, validated against GovPing's analyst note standards . For the primary regulatory language, read the source document .
Published by SDCA on courtlistener.com . Detected, standardized, and enriched by GovPing. Review our methodology and editorial standards .

About this source

GovPing monitors US District Court SDCA Docket Feed for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.

What changed

The court granted the SEC's ex parte motion to enforce a Commission order under Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, requiring defendant Chang G. Park to pay a civil penalty plus accrued interest under 31 U.S.C. § 3717. The defendant failed to respond to a show cause order, resulting in default enforcement.

Registered entities subject to SEC orders should ensure compliance with assessed penalties and interest obligations to avoid judicial enforcement proceedings under Section 21(e)(1). Failure to respond to court show cause orders in SEC enforcement proceedings can result in automatic order enforcement.

Archived snapshot

Apr 24, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project
, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Jan. 28, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chang G. Park, also known as Changgeun Park

District Court, S.D. California

Trial Court Document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 25-cv-3610-BAS-JLB
COMMISSION,
15
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
Plaintiff,
16 MOTION TO ENFORCE
v. (ECF No. 1)
17

CHANG G. PARK, also known as
18
Changgeun Park,
19
Defendant.
20

21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s ex
22 parte motion. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff seeks a Court Order to enforce a Commission order,
23 in accordance with Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Id.); SEC v.
24 McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 659 (9th Cir. 2003).
25 The Court ordered Defendant to Show Cause as to why this Court should not enforce
26 compliance with the Commission order. (ECF No. 2.) The Court gave Defendant until
27 January 23, 2026, to respond. (Id.)
28
I The Court further ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendant with a copy of the motion on
2 ||or before January 9, 2026, and to file a certificate of service with the Court confirming
3 || service of process. (/d.) The Plaintiff filed the certificate of service. (ECF No. 3.)
4 The deadline for Defendant to show cause has passed without a response.
5 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to enforce, requiring Defendant to pay
6 || the civil penalty assessed against him and interest accrued pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3717.
7 || (ECF No. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall close the case.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9 Th ~
10 || DATED: January 28, 2026 Duhark
1 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Named provisions

Section 21(e)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Citations

31 U.S.C. § 3717 interest accrual on civil penalty

Get daily alerts for US District Court SDCA Docket Feed

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from SDCA.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
SDCA
Filed
January 28th, 2026
Instrument
Enforcement
Branch
Judicial
Legal weight
Binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Substantive
Document ID
Case No. 25-cv-3610-BAS-JLB
Docket
3:25-cv-03610

Who this affects

Applies to
Broker-dealers
Industry sector
5231 Securities & Investments
Activity scope
Civil penalty enforcement SEC order compliance
Geographic scope
United States US

Taxonomy

Primary area
Securities
Operational domain
Compliance
Compliance frameworks
SOX Dodd-Frank
Topics
Anti-Money Laundering Sanctions

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when US District Court SDCA Docket Feed publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!