SEC v. Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC; and Christofer Scott Shurian, No. 1:23-cv-00106, District of Utah (Sept. 29, 2023) — Complaint

Casey R. Fronk (Illinois Bar No. 6296535)
[email protected]
Michael E. Welsh (Massachusetts Bar No. 693537)
[email protected]
Troy K. Flake (California Bar No. 267523)
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission
351 South West Temple, Suite 6.100
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
Tel:  (801) 524-5796

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

                         v.

UTAH REGIONAL INVESTMENT FUND,
LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and
CHRISTOFER SCOTT SHURIAN, an
individual;

Defendants, and

CCS OF UTAH, INC., a Utah corporation;

Relief Defendant.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00106

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), files this complaint
against Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC and Christofer S. Shurian (collectively,
“Defendants”) and CCS of Utah, Inc. (“Relief Defendant”) and alleges as follows:

2

SUMMARY
1. Over the course of at least six years, Defendants defrauded investors by
misappropriating investor funds for personal expenses.
2. From October 2014 through April 2020, Defendants raised $18 million by
offering and selling limited partnership interests to 36 investors. In connection with the offering,
Shurian acted by and through Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC (“URIF”), the General
Partner of the limited partnership that issued the securities.
3. Defendants enticed Chinese foreign nationals to make investments of $500,000
each to fund the development of a resort in Garden City, Utah called Water’s Edge Resort
through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) EB-5 Program.
1

4. In their offering materials, Defendants represented they would use investor funds
to build a hotel, condominiums, a waterpark, and retail space that would comprise the Water’s
Edge Resort. Although the offering materials represented the project would be completed in
2017, so far Defendants have completed only one of the retail buildings and started construction
on some of the condominiums. Defendants have not built any hotel, waterpark, or the additional
condominium buildings.
5. The offering materials further represented that investor funds would be spent
solely on the development of the Water’s Edge Resort. Contrary to these representations,
Defendants spent millions of investor funds on Shurian’s personal expenses and to pay a finder’s
fee to an entity retained to find Chinese investors.
6. Finally, the offering materials represented that Defendants had secured the
additional equity funding necessary to complete the project from an investment firm. Defendants

1
The EB-5 program allows foreign nationals to qualify for permanent residency if they make a
qualified investment of at least $1 million (or $500,000 in certain geographic areas) in a new
commercial enterprise that creates or preserves at least ten permanent full-time jobs for qualified
U.S. workers.

3

failed to secure meaningful additional financing for the project and instead resorted to preselling
condominiums.
7. As a result of this conduct, the Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, and the Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of all ill-
gotten gains from the unlawful conduct set forth here together with prejudgment interest, civil
penalties, an officer-and-director bar as to Shurian, and such other relief as the Court may deem
appropriate.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
8. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b) and (g)] and Sections 21(d) and (e)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d) and (e)] to enjoin
such acts, practices, and courses of business, and to obtain disgorgement, prejudgment interest,
civil money penalties, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
appropriate.
9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22 of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v] and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].
10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. § 78aa] because Defendants are located and reside in, and transacted business in, the
District of Utah and because one or more acts or transactions constituting the violations alleged
herein occurred in the District of Utah.
11. Defendants, directly or indirectly, made use of the mails or the means or
instrumentalities of interstate commerce in connection with the conduct alleged in this
Complaint.
DEFENDANTS
12. Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC (“URIF”) is a Utah company formed in
2010 with its principal place of business in Provo, Utah.  The United States Citizenship and

4

Immigration Services (“USCIS”) authorized URIF to serve as an approved regional center under
the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.  URIF is the General Partner of Waters Edge Funding
Partners LP in which the EB-5 investors invested.  Shurian is the sole Manager of URIF.
13. Christofer Scott Shurian, age 57, is a resident of Mapleton, Utah.  Shurian
controls URIF, Waters Edge Funding Partners, Waters Edge Properties, CCS of Utah, and The
Startup Building.
RELIEF DEFENDANT
14. CCS of Utah, Inc. is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in
Orem, Utah. Shurian controls CCS of Utah. CCS of Utah received at least $400,000 in investor
funds to which it had no legitimate claim.
OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES
15. Waters Edge Properties, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Orem, Utah. Shurian controls Waters Edge Properties, and it is the
purported developer of the Water’s Edge Resort. EB-5 investor funds were supposed to be
loaned to Waters Edge Properties to finance the development of the project. However,
Defendants transferred most investor funds to The Startup Building, LLC.
16. Waters Edge Funding Partners, L.P. is a Utah limited partnership with its
principal place of business in Orem, Utah. URIF is its general partner and controlling entity, and
the EB-5 investors are the limited partners. Waters Edge Funding Partners issued its limited
partnership interests to raise funds from EB-5 investors.
17. The Startup Building, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Orem, Utah. Shurian controls The Startup Building. The Startup Building
was the alleged general contractor for the Water’s Edge Resort development project. Defendants
directed investor funds from Waters Edge Funding Partners to The Startup Building.

5

FACTS
I. The Securities Offering and the Structure of the Limited Partnership
18. From October 2014 through April 2020, Defendants solicited EB-5 Program
investments in a real-estate project known as the Water’s Edge Resort. Defendants billed the
Water’s Edge Resort project as development and construction of a hotel, condominiums,
waterpark, and retail buildings on the shore of Bear Lake in northern Utah.
19. With the assistance of Westlead Capital, Inc., an agency engaged in the business
of finding EB-5 investors, URIF raised $18 million for the project from 36 Chinese investors.
20. Defendants provided to investors a packet of investment documents that included
a private placement memorandum (“PPM”), business plan, subscription agreement, limited
partnership agreement, investor suitability questionnaire, escrow agreement, and confidentiality
agreement.
21. Shurian created, directed, or approved each of these documents, and Shurian had
ultimate authority over the content of the offering documents.
22. The business plan informed investors that URIF would use investor funds toward
the development and construction of the Water’s Edge Resort. The business plan indicated that
the total cost of developing Water’s Edge Resort would be $62.5 million, up to $22 million of
which would come from EB-5 investors and the remainder of which would come from an entity
called Velocity Ventures, LLC. The business plan further represented that construction on the
project would begin the spring of 2014 and would be completed within 30 months.
23. The partnership agreement formed a limited partnership called Waters Edge
Funding Partners, LP, whose general partner is URIF and limited partners are the EB-5 investors.
The agreement stated that Waters Edge Funding Partners was formed “to loan funds as so
designated by the General Partner to The Waters Edge at Bear Lake.”
24. Investors had an expectation of profits based on the efforts of Shurian and his
entities. Specifically, pursuant to the Waters Edge Funding Partners partnership agreement, the
general and limited partners had rights to a pro rata distribution of the partnership’s cash flow.

6

25. The partnership agreement further represented that as general partner URIF has
“the exclusive right and power to manage, operate, and control the Limited Partnership and to do all
things and make all decisions necessary or appropriate to carry on the business and affairs of the
Limited Partnership.”
26. The EB-5 investors were therefore passive, and any returns they received would
come not from their efforts, but from the efforts of Shurian, URIF, and other entities Shurian
controls.
27. The PPM  stated that the offering was of up to 44 units of limited partnership
interests in Waters Edge Funding Partners.
28. These units of limited partnership interests are securities under the federal
securities laws.
29. Each unit was offered for $550,000: $500,000 constituted the “capital
contribution,” and $50,000 was an “administrative fee . . . to cover expenses associated with
Subscriber’s application.”
30. The PPM, which incorporated by reference the business plan and partnership
agreement, indicated that the partnership would use each investor’s $500,000 capital
contribution, “to make Investments by the Partnership as outlined in the Partnership Agreement,
at the sole discretion of the General Partner [URIF]” and that “the entire Unit Price will be used
for Investment purposes.”
31. The PPM further represented that investors could expect profits. It stated, “The
Investment of capital by the Partnership, which will be directed exclusively at the sole discretion of
the General Partner [URIF], is intended to generate income and capital gains for the Partnership.”
II.  Flow of Investor Funds
32. Notwithstanding Defendants’ representations in the partnership agreement that
investor funds would be held in separate “individual Capital Account[s],” Defendants pooled
together investor funds into undifferentiated accounts controlled by Shurian.

7

33. Namely, $18 million in investor funds flowed from an escrow account in the
name of URIF to one of two accounts in the name of Waters Edge Funding Partners.
34. Under Shurian’s direction, Waters Edge Funding Partners then transferred
roughly $10 million in investor funds to an account in the name of The Startup Building, an
entity that Shurian exclusively controls.
III. Defendants Misappropriated and Misused Investor Funds.
35. Defendants stated in the offering materials that they would only use the investors’
$500,000 capital contributions for the development and construction of the Water’s Edge Resort.
36. Contrary to these representations, Defendants repeatedly misappropriated or
misused investor funds.
37. Such misappropriations include but are not limited to:
a. over $1.9 million between 2015 and 2018 in payments to Westlead Capital
and a related entity as payment for finding EB-5 investors;
b. over $1.16 million on or around July 29, 2016 for the purchase of an unrelated
property in Heber, Utah;
c. nearly $250,000 on or around October 3, 2016 for the purchase of Shurian’s
primary residence in Mapleton, Utah;
d. approximately $160,000 between November and December 2017 for the
purchase of a vacation home in Mexico for Shurian;
e. over $180,000 between 2016 and 2019 on vehicle purchases for Shurian;
f. over $500,000 between 2014 and 2019 in Shurian’s personal credit card
payments;
g. Approximately $340,000 between 2014 and 2019 to Shurian’s ex-wife;
h. over $700,000 between 2014 and 2019 in payments directly to Shurian’s
personal bank account; and
i. approximately $420,000 between 2014 and 2019 in payments to CCS of Utah.

8

38. In total, Defendants spent at least $5 million in comingled investor funds on
expenses unrelated to the development and construction of the Water’s Edge Resort.
39. Defendants knew that using investor funds to pay for personal and unrelated
business expenses was contrary to the representations made in the offering documents.
III. Defendants Misrepresented Their Access to Additional Funds.
40. Defendants misrepresented to investors their access to additional capital to fund
the Water’s Edge Resort.
41. Although Shurian engaged in initial discussions with Velocity Ventures regarding
funding the Water’s Edge Resort construction and obtained a letter of intent, that funding never
materialized.
42. Nonetheless, Shurian, knowing that no funding was coming from Velocity
Ventures, continued to allow the business plan containing the representations about Velocity
Ventures to be distributed to prospective investors.
43. As of October 2021, Defendants had not secured any additional funding on the
project other than some small bridge loans from community banks. Accordingly, as of the end of
2021, Defendants had only built one of the commercial buildings at the Water’s Edge Resort.
Defendants, and had not broken ground on any of the condominiums or the hotel building. As a
result, URIF was well behind its completion date of 2017, as represented in the business plan.
44. Since October 2021, Defendants started preselling condominium units to fund the
construction of Water’s Edge Resort.
45. With this funding, Defendants have begun construction of the condominium
buildings.
46. Additional condominium buildings have yet to be built, and ground has not been
broken on the hotel or water park.
IV. Defendants Deceived USCIS.
47. As part of the EB-5 program, a regional center, like URIF, is required to submit to
USCIS an Annual Certification of Regional Center each year on Form I-924A.

9

48. As part of the Form I-924A, a regional center must attest to the amount of capital
investment spent on the approved project and number of jobs created each year by means of the
EB-5 investors’ capital contributions.
49. In its Forms I-924 for at least the years 2015 through 2019, Defendants
misrepresented the amount of capital investment spent on the development and construction of
the Water’s Edge Resort and the number of jobs created as a result.
50. Shurian created false invoices from The Startup Building to Waters Edge
Properties that included fabricated figures for amounts The Startup Building spent on the
Water’s Edge Resort.
51. Defendants used the figures from the fabricated invoices to support the numbers
reported in the Forms I-924 for capital investment and job creation.
52. By means of these deceptive acts, Defendants were able to continue raising
investor funds through the EB-5 program.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]
(Against Both Defendants)
53. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation in paragraphs 1–52, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.
54. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer or sale of
securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in
interstate commerce or the mails, (1) knowingly or recklessly have employed one or more
devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, (2) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently have obtained
money or property by means of one or more untrue statements of material fact or omissions of a
material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
which they were made, not misleading, and/or (3) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently have
engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.

10

55. By reason of the forgoing, Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert,
have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. §
77q(a)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [15 U.S.C.
§ 78j(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]
(Against Both Defendants)
56. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation in paragraphs 1–52, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.
57. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or
recklessly have (i) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, (ii) made one
or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading, and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of
business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons.
58. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, will again
violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. §
240.10b-5].
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Equitable Disgorgement
(Against Relief Defendant)
59. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation in paragraphs 1–52, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.
60. CCS of Utah obtained money, property, and assets as a result of the violations of
the securities laws by Defendants, to which it has no legitimate claim.

11

61. CCS of Utah should be required to disgorge all ill-gotten gains which inured to its
benefit under the equitable doctrines of disgorgement, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a final
judgment:
I.
Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from, directly or indirectly, engaging
in conduct in violation of Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Exchange Act
Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];
II.
Pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 21(d)(1) and (d)(5) of
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 78u(d)(5)], permanently restraining and enjoining Shurian
from, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled
by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities; provided, however,
that such injunction shall not prevent him from purchasing or selling securities for his own
personal account;
III.
Ordering Defendants and Relief Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains or unjust
enrichment derived from the activities set forth in this Complaint, together with prejudgment
interest thereon;
 IV.
Ordering Defendants to pay civil penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)];

12

V.
 Barring Shurian from serving as an officer or director of a public company pursuant to
Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)]  of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)];
VI.
Retaining jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and
decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional
relief within the jurisdiction of this Court; and,
VII.
Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, or necessary
in connection with the enforcement of the federal securities laws and for the protection of
investors.
Dated:  September 29, 2023.
     Respectfully submitted,

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

      /s/ Troy K. Flake                       `
     Troy K. Flake
     Casey R. Fronk
     Michael E. Welsh
     Attorneys for Plaintiff
  Securities and Exchange Commission

JS 44   (Rev. 10/20)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.    (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I.
(a)   PLAINTIFFSDEFENDANTS
(b)
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c)
Attorneys
(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys
(If Known)
II.  BASIS OF JURISDICTION
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
and One Box for Defendant)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
1U.S. Government3Federal Question
PTFDEFPTFDEF
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Citizen of This State1
1Incorporated or Principal Place44
of Business In This State
2U.S. Government4DiversityCitizen of Another State22Incorporated
and
Principal Place55
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a33Foreign Nation66
Foreign Country
IV.  NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACTTORTSFORFEITURE/PENALTYBANKRUPTCYOTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURYPERSONAL INJURY
625 Drug Related Seizure422 Appeal 28 USC 158375 False Claims Act
120 Marine310 Airplane365 Personal Injury  -of Property 21 USC 881423 Withdrawal376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act315 Airplane ProductProduct Liability690 Other28 USC 1573729(a))
140 Negotiable InstrumentLiability367 Health Care/400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment320 Assault, Libel &Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of JudgmentSlanderPersonal Injury820 Copyrights430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act330 Federal Employers’Product Liability830 Patent450 Commerce
152 Recovery of DefaultedLiability368 Asbestos Personal835 Patent - Abbreviated460 Deportation
Student Loans340 MarineInjury ProductNew Drug Application470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans)345 Marine ProductLiability
840 Trademark
Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of OverpaymentLiability
PERSONAL PROPERTYLABOR
880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits350 Motor Vehicle370 Other Fraud710 Fair Labor StandardsAct of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits355 Motor Vehicle371 Truth in LendingAct485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other ContractProduct Liability380 Other Personal720 Labor/Management
SOCIAL SECURITY
Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability360 Other PersonalProperty DamageRelations861 HIA (1395ff)490 Cable/Sat TV
196 FranchiseInjury385 Property Damage740 Railway Labor Act862 Black Lung (923)850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury -
Product Liability751 Family and Medical863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))Exchange
Medical MalpracticeLeave Act
864 SSID Title XVI890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTYCIVIL RIGHTSPRISONER PETITIONS
790 Other Labor Litigation
865 RSI (405(g))891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
791 Employee Retirement893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure441 Voting463 Alien DetaineeIncome Security Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment442 Employment510 Motions to Vacate870 Taxes (U.S. PlaintiffAct
240 Torts to Land443 Housing/Sentenceor Defendant)896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product LiabilityAccommodations530 General871 IRS—Third Party899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property445 Amer. w/Disabilities -535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment
Other:
462 Naturalization Application
Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities -540 Mandamus & Other465 Other Immigration950 Constitutionality of
Other550 Civil RightsActionsState Statutes
448 Education555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V.  ORIGIN
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1   Original
Proceeding
2   Removed from
State Court
3Remanded from
Appellate Court
4  Reinstated or
Reopened
5  Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6   Multidistrict
Litigation -
Transfer
8  Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File
VI.  CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Brief description of cause:
VII.  REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF THIS IS A
CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND:
YesNo
VIII.  RELATED CASE(S)
          IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGEDOCKET NUMBER
DATESIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #AMOUNTAPPLYING IFPJUDGEMAG. JUDGE
26 USC 7609
Utah County
Securities & Exchange Commission
Casey R. Fronk, Michael E. Welsh, Troy K. Flake
SEC, 351 S. West Temple, Ste. 6.100, SLC, UT 84101,
801-524-5796
see attachment
Justin R. Elswick
HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES
2696 N. University Ave. Suite 180, Provo, UT 84604
✖
✖
15.U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c); § 77q(a)(1),(2),(3); § 78j(b); § 78o(a)(1); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a),(b),(c)
Securities Fraud
✖
✖
9-29-2023
TROY FLAKE
Digitally signed by TROY FLAKE
Date: 2023.09.29 10:06:57 -06'00'

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.  Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed.  The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)
Plaintiffs-Defendants.  Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant.  If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
the official, giving both name and title.
   (b)
County of Residence.  For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
   (c)Attorneys.  Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record.  If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II.
Jurisdiction.  The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings.  Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff.  (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348.  Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant.  (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question.  (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship.  (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states.  When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked
.
(See Section III below
; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.
)
III.       Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.
  This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.  Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit.
  Place an "X" in the appropriate box.  If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable.  Click here for:
Nature of Suit Code Descriptions
.
V.  Origin.
  Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings.  (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court.  (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court.  (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action.  Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened.  (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court.  Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District.  (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer.  (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File.  (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7.
  Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI.  Cause of Action.
  Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause.
Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity.
 Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
VII.     Requested in Complaint.
  Class Action.  Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand.  In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand.  Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII.   Related Cases.
  This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any.  If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature.
  Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet
DEFENDANTS
UTAH REGIONAL INVESTMENT FUND, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and
CHRISTOFER SCOTT SHURIAN, an individual,
Defendants,
CCS OF UTAH, INC., a Utah corporation,
Relief Defendant.

Casey R. Fronk (Illinois Bar No. 6296535) 
[email protected] 
Michael E. Welsh (Massachusetts Bar No. 693537) 
[email protected] 
Troy K. Flake (California Bar No. 267523) 
[email protected] 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
351 South West Temple, Suite 6.100 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 
Tel:  (801) 524-5796 
 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION 

 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 

Plaintiff, 
 
                         v. 
 
UTAH REGIONAL INVESTMENT FUND, 
LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and 
CHRISTOFER SCOTT SHURIAN, an 
individual; 
 

Defendants, and 
 
CCS OF UTAH, INC., a Utah corporation;  
 

Relief Defendant. 
 
 

 
 

 
 
Case No.: 1:23-cv-00106   

 
 

 
COMPLAINT 

 
 

Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), files this complaint 

against Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC and Christofer S. Shurian (collectively, 

“Defendants”) and CCS of Utah, Inc. (“Relief Defendant”) and alleges as follows:  

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.1   Page 1 of 12



2 
 

SUMMARY 

1. Over the course of at least six years, Defendants defrauded investors by 

misappropriating investor funds for personal expenses. 

2. From October 2014 through April 2020, Defendants raised $18 million by 

offering and selling limited partnership interests to 36 investors. In connection with the offering, 

Shurian acted by and through Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC (“URIF”), the General 

Partner of the limited partnership that issued the securities. 

3. Defendants enticed Chinese foreign nationals to make investments of $500,000 

each to fund the development of a resort in Garden City, Utah called Water’s Edge Resort 

through the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) EB-5 Program.1  

4. In their offering materials, Defendants represented they would use investor funds 

to build a hotel, condominiums, a waterpark, and retail space that would comprise the Water’s 

Edge Resort. Although the offering materials represented the project would be completed in 

2017, so far Defendants have completed only one of the retail buildings and started construction 

on some of the condominiums. Defendants have not built any hotel, waterpark, or the additional 

condominium buildings. 

5. The offering materials further represented that investor funds would be spent 

solely on the development of the Water’s Edge Resort. Contrary to these representations, 

Defendants spent millions of investor funds on Shurian’s personal expenses and to pay a finder’s 

fee to an entity retained to find Chinese investors. 

6. Finally, the offering materials represented that Defendants had secured the 

additional equity funding necessary to complete the project from an investment firm. Defendants 

 
1The EB-5 program allows foreign nationals to qualify for permanent residency if they make a 
qualified investment of at least $1 million (or $500,000 in certain geographic areas) in a new 
commercial enterprise that creates or preserves at least ten permanent full-time jobs for qualified 
U.S. workers. 

 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.2   Page 2 of 12



3 
 

failed to secure meaningful additional financing for the project and instead resorted to preselling 

condominiums. 

7. As a result of this conduct, the Defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the 

federal securities laws, and the Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of all ill-

gotten gains from the unlawful conduct set forth here together with prejudgment interest, civil 

penalties, an officer-and-director bar as to Shurian, and such other relief as the Court may deem 

appropriate. 
 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. The Commission brings this action pursuant to Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the 

Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b) and (g)] and Sections 21(d) and (e) 

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d) and (e)] to enjoin 

such acts, practices, and courses of business, and to obtain disgorgement, prejudgment interest, 

civil money penalties, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and 

appropriate. 

9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 22 of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77v] and Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa]. 

10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78aa] because Defendants are located and reside in, and transacted business in, the 

District of Utah and because one or more acts or transactions constituting the violations alleged 

herein occurred in the District of Utah.  

11. Defendants, directly or indirectly, made use of the mails or the means or 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce in connection with the conduct alleged in this 

Complaint.  

DEFENDANTS 

12. Utah Regional Investment Fund, LLC (“URIF”) is a Utah company formed in 

2010 with its principal place of business in Provo, Utah.  The United States Citizenship and 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.3   Page 3 of 12



4 
 

Immigration Services (“USCIS”) authorized URIF to serve as an approved regional center under 

the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.  URIF is the General Partner of Waters Edge Funding 

Partners LP in which the EB-5 investors invested.  Shurian is the sole Manager of URIF. 

13. Christofer Scott Shurian, age 57, is a resident of Mapleton, Utah.  Shurian 

controls URIF, Waters Edge Funding Partners, Waters Edge Properties, CCS of Utah, and The 

Startup Building.  

RELIEF DEFENDANT 

14. CCS of Utah, Inc. is a Utah corporation with its principal place of business in 

Orem, Utah. Shurian controls CCS of Utah. CCS of Utah received at least $400,000 in investor 

funds to which it had no legitimate claim.  

OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 

15. Waters Edge Properties, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Orem, Utah. Shurian controls Waters Edge Properties, and it is the 

purported developer of the Water’s Edge Resort. EB-5 investor funds were supposed to be 

loaned to Waters Edge Properties to finance the development of the project. However, 

Defendants transferred most investor funds to The Startup Building, LLC. 

16. Waters Edge Funding Partners, L.P. is a Utah limited partnership with its 

principal place of business in Orem, Utah. URIF is its general partner and controlling entity, and 

the EB-5 investors are the limited partners. Waters Edge Funding Partners issued its limited 

partnership interests to raise funds from EB-5 investors.  

17. The Startup Building, LLC is a Utah limited liability company with its principal 

place of business in Orem, Utah. Shurian controls The Startup Building. The Startup Building 

was the alleged general contractor for the Water’s Edge Resort development project. Defendants 

directed investor funds from Waters Edge Funding Partners to The Startup Building.  

 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.4   Page 4 of 12



5 
 

FACTS 

I. The Securities Offering and the Structure of the Limited Partnership 

18. From October 2014 through April 2020, Defendants solicited EB-5 Program 

investments in a real-estate project known as the Water’s Edge Resort. Defendants billed the 

Water’s Edge Resort project as development and construction of a hotel, condominiums, 

waterpark, and retail buildings on the shore of Bear Lake in northern Utah. 

19. With the assistance of Westlead Capital, Inc., an agency engaged in the business 

of finding EB-5 investors, URIF raised $18 million for the project from 36 Chinese investors. 

20. Defendants provided to investors a packet of investment documents that included 

a private placement memorandum (“PPM”), business plan, subscription agreement, limited 

partnership agreement, investor suitability questionnaire, escrow agreement, and confidentiality 

agreement.  

21. Shurian created, directed, or approved each of these documents, and Shurian had 

ultimate authority over the content of the offering documents. 

22. The business plan informed investors that URIF would use investor funds toward 

the development and construction of the Water’s Edge Resort. The business plan indicated that 

the total cost of developing Water’s Edge Resort would be $62.5 million, up to $22 million of 

which would come from EB-5 investors and the remainder of which would come from an entity 

called Velocity Ventures, LLC. The business plan further represented that construction on the 

project would begin the spring of 2014 and would be completed within 30 months. 

23. The partnership agreement formed a limited partnership called Waters Edge 

Funding Partners, LP, whose general partner is URIF and limited partners are the EB-5 investors. 

The agreement stated that Waters Edge Funding Partners was formed “to loan funds as so 

designated by the General Partner to The Waters Edge at Bear Lake.”  

24. Investors had an expectation of profits based on the efforts of Shurian and his 

entities. Specifically, pursuant to the Waters Edge Funding Partners partnership agreement, the 

general and limited partners had rights to a pro rata distribution of the partnership’s cash flow. 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.5   Page 5 of 12



6 
 

25. The partnership agreement further represented that as general partner URIF has 

“the exclusive right and power to manage, operate, and control the Limited Partnership and to do all 

things and make all decisions necessary or appropriate to carry on the business and affairs of the 

Limited Partnership.” 

26. The EB-5 investors were therefore passive, and any returns they received would 

come not from their efforts, but from the efforts of Shurian, URIF, and other entities Shurian 

controls. 

27. The PPM  stated that the offering was of up to 44 units of limited partnership 

interests in Waters Edge Funding Partners. 

28. These units of limited partnership interests are securities under the federal 

securities laws. 

29. Each unit was offered for $550,000: $500,000 constituted the “capital 

contribution,” and $50,000 was an “administrative fee . . . to cover expenses associated with 

Subscriber’s application.” 

30. The PPM, which incorporated by reference the business plan and partnership 

agreement, indicated that the partnership would use each investor’s $500,000 capital 

contribution, “to make Investments by the Partnership as outlined in the Partnership Agreement, 

at the sole discretion of the General Partner [URIF]” and that “the entire Unit Price will be used 

for Investment purposes.” 

31. The PPM further represented that investors could expect profits. It stated, “The 

Investment of capital by the Partnership, which will be directed exclusively at the sole discretion of 

the General Partner [URIF], is intended to generate income and capital gains for the Partnership.” 

II.  Flow of Investor Funds 

32. Notwithstanding Defendants’ representations in the partnership agreement that 

investor funds would be held in separate “individual Capital Account[s],” Defendants pooled 

together investor funds into undifferentiated accounts controlled by Shurian. 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.6   Page 6 of 12



7 
 

33. Namely, $18 million in investor funds flowed from an escrow account in the 

name of URIF to one of two accounts in the name of Waters Edge Funding Partners.  

34. Under Shurian’s direction, Waters Edge Funding Partners then transferred 

roughly $10 million in investor funds to an account in the name of The Startup Building, an 

entity that Shurian exclusively controls. 

III. Defendants Misappropriated and Misused Investor Funds. 

35. Defendants stated in the offering materials that they would only use the investors’ 

$500,000 capital contributions for the development and construction of the Water’s Edge Resort. 

36. Contrary to these representations, Defendants repeatedly misappropriated or 

misused investor funds. 

37. Such misappropriations include but are not limited to: 

a. over $1.9 million between 2015 and 2018 in payments to Westlead Capital 

and a related entity as payment for finding EB-5 investors; 

b. over $1.16 million on or around July 29, 2016 for the purchase of an unrelated 

property in Heber, Utah; 

c. nearly $250,000 on or around October 3, 2016 for the purchase of Shurian’s 

primary residence in Mapleton, Utah; 

d. approximately $160,000 between November and December 2017 for the 

purchase of a vacation home in Mexico for Shurian; 

e. over $180,000 between 2016 and 2019 on vehicle purchases for Shurian; 

f. over $500,000 between 2014 and 2019 in Shurian’s personal credit card 

payments; 

g. Approximately $340,000 between 2014 and 2019 to Shurian’s ex-wife; 

h. over $700,000 between 2014 and 2019 in payments directly to Shurian’s 

personal bank account; and 

i. approximately $420,000 between 2014 and 2019 in payments to CCS of Utah. 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.7   Page 7 of 12



8 
 

38. In total, Defendants spent at least $5 million in comingled investor funds on 

expenses unrelated to the development and construction of the Water’s Edge Resort. 

39. Defendants knew that using investor funds to pay for personal and unrelated 

business expenses was contrary to the representations made in the offering documents. 

III. Defendants Misrepresented Their Access to Additional Funds. 

40. Defendants misrepresented to investors their access to additional capital to fund 

the Water’s Edge Resort. 

41. Although Shurian engaged in initial discussions with Velocity Ventures regarding 

funding the Water’s Edge Resort construction and obtained a letter of intent, that funding never 

materialized.  

42. Nonetheless, Shurian, knowing that no funding was coming from Velocity 

Ventures, continued to allow the business plan containing the representations about Velocity 

Ventures to be distributed to prospective investors. 

43. As of October 2021, Defendants had not secured any additional funding on the 

project other than some small bridge loans from community banks. Accordingly, as of the end of 

2021, Defendants had only built one of the commercial buildings at the Water’s Edge Resort. 

Defendants, and had not broken ground on any of the condominiums or the hotel building. As a 

result, URIF was well behind its completion date of 2017, as represented in the business plan. 

44. Since October 2021, Defendants started preselling condominium units to fund the 

construction of Water’s Edge Resort. 

45. With this funding, Defendants have begun construction of the condominium 

buildings. 

46. Additional condominium buildings have yet to be built, and ground has not been 

broken on the hotel or water park. 

IV. Defendants Deceived USCIS. 

47. As part of the EB-5 program, a regional center, like URIF, is required to submit to 

USCIS an Annual Certification of Regional Center each year on Form I-924A.  

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.8   Page 8 of 12



9 
 

48. As part of the Form I-924A, a regional center must attest to the amount of capital 

investment spent on the approved project and number of jobs created each year by means of the 

EB-5 investors’ capital contributions. 

49. In its Forms I-924 for at least the years 2015 through 2019, Defendants 

misrepresented the amount of capital investment spent on the development and construction of 

the Water’s Edge Resort and the number of jobs created as a result. 

50. Shurian created false invoices from The Startup Building to Waters Edge 

Properties that included fabricated figures for amounts The Startup Building spent on the 

Water’s Edge Resort. 

51. Defendants used the figures from the fabricated invoices to support the numbers 

reported in the Forms I-924 for capital investment and job creation. 

52. By means of these deceptive acts, Defendants were able to continue raising 

investor funds through the EB-5 program.  

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] 

(Against Both Defendants) 

53. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation in paragraphs 1–52, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

54. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer or sale of 

securities and by the use of the means or instruments of transportation or communication in 

interstate commerce or the mails, (1) knowingly or recklessly have employed one or more 

devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, (2) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently have obtained 

money or property by means of one or more untrue statements of material fact or omissions of a 

material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under 

which they were made, not misleading, and/or (3) knowingly, recklessly, or negligently have 

engaged in one or more transactions, practices, or courses of business which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser. 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.9   Page 9 of 12



10 
 

55. By reason of the forgoing, Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, 

have violated and, unless enjoined, will again violate Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 

77q(a)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78j(b); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5] 

(Against Both Defendants) 

56. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation in paragraphs 1–52, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein.  

57. Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in connection with the 

purchase or sale of securities and by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce, or the mails, or the facilities of a national securities exchange, knowingly or 

recklessly have (i) employed one or more devices, schemes, or artifices to defraud, (ii) made one 

or more untrue statements of a material fact or omitted to state one or more material facts 

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they 

were made, not misleading, and/or (iii) engaged in one or more acts, practices, or courses of 

business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon other persons. 

58. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated and, unless enjoined, will again  

violate Exchange Act Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 

240.10b-5]. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Equitable Disgorgement  

(Against Relief Defendant) 

59. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation in paragraphs 1–52, inclusive, as if they were fully set forth herein. 

60. CCS of Utah obtained money, property, and assets as a result of the violations of 

the securities laws by Defendants, to which it has no legitimate claim. 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.10   Page 10 of 12



11 
 

61. CCS of Utah should be required to disgorge all ill-gotten gains which inured to its 

benefit under the equitable doctrines of disgorgement, unjust enrichment, and constructive trust. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court enter a final 

judgment: 

I. 

Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from, directly or indirectly, engaging 

in conduct in violation of Securities Act Section 17(a) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], and Exchange Act 

Section 10(b) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; 

II. 

Pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act and Sections 21(d)(1) and (d)(5) of 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 78u(d)(5)], permanently restraining and enjoining Shurian 

from, directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, through any entity owned or controlled 

by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities; provided, however, 

that such injunction shall not prevent him from purchasing or selling securities for his own 

personal account; 

III. 

Ordering Defendants and Relief Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains or unjust 

enrichment derived from the activities set forth in this Complaint, together with prejudgment 

interest thereon; 

 IV.  

Ordering Defendants to pay civil penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act 

[15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.11   Page 11 of 12



12 
 

V. 

 Barring Shurian from serving as an officer or director of a public company pursuant to 

Section 20(e) [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)]  of the Securities Act and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(2)]; 

VI. 

Retaining jurisdiction of this action in accordance with the principles of equity and the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to implement and carry out the terms of all orders and 

decrees that may be entered, or to entertain any suitable application or motion for additional 

relief within the jurisdiction of this Court; and, 

VII. 

Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, equitable, or necessary 

in connection with the enforcement of the federal securities laws and for the protection of 

investors. 

Dated:  September 29, 2023. 

     Respectfully submitted, 

 

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 

      /s/ Troy K. Flake                     ` 
     Troy K. Flake 
     Casey R. Fronk 
     Michael E. Welsh 
     Attorneys for Plaintiff 

  Securities and Exchange Commission 
 

 

       

 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.12   Page 12 of 12



JS 44   (Rev. 10/20) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as 
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the 
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.    (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II.  BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff 
and One Box for Defendant) (For Diversity Cases Only)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country

IV.  NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury  - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of 
Confinement

V.  ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original

Proceeding 
2 Removed from

State Court
3 Remanded from

Appellate Court 
4 Reinstated or

Reopened
5 Transferred from

Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation - 
Transfer

8  Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File

VI.  CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII.  REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII.  RELATED CASE(S) 
          IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

26 USC 7609

Utah County

Securities & Exchange Commission

Casey R. Fronk, Michael E. Welsh, Troy K. Flake 
SEC, 351 S. West Temple, Ste. 6.100, SLC, UT 84101, 
801-524-5796

see attachment

Justin R. Elswick  
HEIDEMAN & ASSOCIATES 
2696 N. University Ave. Suite 180, Provo, UT 84604

✖

✖

15.U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c); § 77q(a)(1),(2),(3); § 78j(b); § 78o(a)(1); 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a),(b),(c)

Securities Fraud

✖

✖

9-29-2023 TROY FLAKE Digitally signed by TROY FLAKE 
Date: 2023.09.29 10:06:57 -06'00'

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1-1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.13   Page 1 of 3



JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 10/20)

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as 
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is 
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.  Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of 
Court for each civil complaint filed.  The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: 

I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants.  Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant.  If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use   
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then 
the official, giving both name and title.

   (b) County of Residence.  For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the 
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land 
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) 

   (c) Attorneys.  Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record.  If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting  
in this section "(see attachment)". 

II.   Jurisdiction.  The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings.  Place an "X" 
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. 
United States plaintiff.  (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348.  Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. 
United States defendant.  (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. 
Federal question.  (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment 
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes 
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. 
Diversity of citizenship.  (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states.  When Box 4 is checked, the  
citizenship of the different parties must be checked.  (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity  
cases.) 

III.   Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties.  This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above.  Mark this 
section for each principal party. 

IV. Nature of Suit.  Place an "X" in the appropriate box.  If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code  
that is most applicable.  Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions. 

V.  Origin.  Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. 
Original Proceedings.  (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. 
Removed from State Court.  (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.   
Remanded from Appellate Court.  (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action.  Use the date of remand as the filing 
date. 
Reinstated or Reopened.  (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court.  Use the reopening date as the filing date. 
Transferred from Another District.  (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers. 
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer.  (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. 
Section 1407. 
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File.  (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.  
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7.  Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to  
changes in statue. 

VI.  Cause of Action.  Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause.  Do not cite jurisdictional  
statutes unless diversity.  Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service. 

VII.  Requested in Complaint.  Class Action.  Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. 
Demand.  In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. 
Jury Demand.  Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. 

VIII.   Related Cases.   This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any.  If there are related pending cases, insert the docket  
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. 

Date and Attorney Signature.  Date and sign the civil cover sheet. 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1-1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.14   Page 2 of 3



Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet  

DEFENDANTS 

UTAH REGIONAL INVESTMENT FUND, LLC, a Utah limited liability company; and 
CHRISTOFER SCOTT SHURIAN, an individual, 

Defendants, 

CCS OF UTAH, INC., a Utah corporation, 

Relief Defendant. 

 

Case 1:23-cv-00106   Document 1-1   Filed 09/29/23   PageID.15   Page 3 of 3