SEC v. STANFORD INTERNATIONAL BANK, No. 3:09-cv-0298, Northern District of Texas (Sept. 18, 2025)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE   §
COMMISSION,                                                §
      §
   Plaintiff,  §
      §
v.      §       Civil Action No.:  3:09-CV-0298-N
§
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL     §
BANK, LTD.,  et al.     §
      §
                                    Defendants.                        §
____________________________________§

PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT MARK KUHRT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) respectfully requests that the
Court dismiss with prejudice the SEC’s claims against defendant Mark Kuhrt (“Kuhrt”) pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). In support of this motion, the SEC states as follows:
Background
The SEC brought this action on February 16, 2009 (“Civil Action”). [Doc. 1.] On June
19, 2009, the SEC moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add Kuhrt and others
as defendants and to add allegations that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme. [Doc. 490.] On
January 4, 2010, the Court granted the SEC’s motion for leave. [Docs. 937, 952.] And, on
January 8, 2010, the SEC filed its Second Amended Complaint. [Doc. 952.] Kuhrt’s Answer,
which he filed on June 18, 2010, asserts no counterclaims. [Doc. 1104.]
The SEC requests that the Court enter the proposed order, submitted herewith, dismissing
with prejudice the SEC’s claims against Kuhrt as to the conduct alleged in the Second Amended
Complaint, and without costs or fees to either party.

 2

The SEC, in the exercise of its discretion, believes the dismissal of this case against
Kuhrt is appropriate. The SEC’s decision to seek dismissal of its claims against Kuhrt does not
necessarily reflect the SEC’s position on any other defendant in this action or any other case.
Argument and Authorities
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed by
court order, at the plaintiff’s request, on terms that the Court considers proper. “The purpose of
Rule 41(a)(2) ‘is primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side,
and to permit the imposition of curative conditions.’ Accordingly the courts have generally
followed the traditional principle that dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will
suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. It is not a bar
to dismissal that plaintiff may obtain some tactical advantage thereby.” Manshack v.
Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 915 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting 9 W
RIGHT &
MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2364 (1st ed. 1971)). In the absence of plain
legal prejudice to the defendant, the court should generally grant the plaintiff’s request for even
an unconditional dismissal “absent some evidence of abuse.” Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc.,
279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002).
Granting this motion will not unfairly affect Kuhrt because he will suffer no plain legal
prejudice, or even the possibility of a second lawsuit, as the SEC asks the Court to dismiss the
action against Kuhrt with prejudice. Moreover, since Kuhrt has asserted no counterclaims against
the SEC, the Court is not required to analyze whether any such claims could have remained
pending for independent adjudication following the voluntary dismissal of the SEC’s action. See
F
ED R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2).
WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court enter an order in the form

 3

submitted herewith dismissing with prejudice the SEC’s claims against Kuhrt, with each party to
bear their own fees and costs.
Dated:   September 18, 2025                         Respectfully            submitted,

/s/ Jason J. Rose
            JASON            J.            ROSE
Texas Bar No. 24007946
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900
801 Cherry Street, Unit 18
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 978-1408 (jjr)
(817) 978-4927 (facsimile)
[email protected]

     ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
                                                            SECURITIES            AND            EXCHANGE
     COMMISSION

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

 I certify that on September 11, 12, 16, and 18, 2025, I conferred by email with John M.
Helms, Jr., counsel for Mark Kuhrt, regarding the relief sought herein. The SEC submits this
motion as opposed because opposing counsel has not responded regarding his client’s position.

/s/ Jason J. Rose
      Jason J. Rose

4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on September 18, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, using the CM/ECF
system. The ECF system will send a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to all counsel of record who
has consented in writing to accept service of this document by electronic means.
I further certify that on September 19, 2025, I will serve a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by depositing a copy thereof in an
authorized UPS depository at Fort Worth, Texas, with overnight express charges prepaid and
addressed to the following parties, and ZLOOalso mail a true and correct copy by United States
Postal Certified Mail, Return Receipt required to the persons noticed below who are non-CM/
ECF participants:
R. Allen Stanford, Pro Se
Inmate #35017183
Coleman II USP
Post Office Box 1034
Coleman, FL 33521
Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested
R. Allen Stanford, Pro Se
Inmate #35017183
Coleman II USP
846 NE 54
th
 Terrace
Sumterville, FL 33521
Via UPS, Overnight Mail
/s/ Jason J. Rose
Jason J. Rose

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE  § 
COMMISSION,    § 
      § 
   Plaintiff,  § 
      § 
v.      §       Civil Action No.:  3:09-CV-0298-N  

§ 
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL   § 
BANK, LTD.,  et al.     § 
      § 
   Defendants.  §  
____________________________________§ 
 

PLAINTIFF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’S 
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF CLAIMS AGAINST 

DEFENDANT MARK KUHRT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT 
 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) respectfully requests that the 

Court dismiss with prejudice the SEC’s claims against defendant Mark Kuhrt (“Kuhrt”) pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). In support of this motion, the SEC states as follows: 

Background 

The SEC brought this action on February 16, 2009 (“Civil Action”). [Doc. 1.] On June 

19, 2009, the SEC moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add Kuhrt and others 

as defendants and to add allegations that Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme. [Doc. 490.] On 

January 4, 2010, the Court granted the SEC’s motion for leave. [Docs. 937, 952.] And, on 

January 8, 2010, the SEC filed its Second Amended Complaint. [Doc. 952.] Kuhrt’s Answer, 

which he filed on June 18, 2010, asserts no counterclaims. [Doc. 1104.] 

The SEC requests that the Court enter the proposed order, submitted herewith, dismissing 

with prejudice the SEC’s claims against Kuhrt as to the conduct alleged in the Second Amended 

Complaint, and without costs or fees to either party. 

Case 3:09-cv-00298-N     Document 3543     Filed 09/18/25      Page 1 of 4     PageID 107655



  
 2 
 

The SEC, in the exercise of its discretion, believes the dismissal of this case against 

Kuhrt is appropriate. The SEC’s decision to seek dismissal of its claims against Kuhrt does not 

necessarily reflect the SEC’s position on any other defendant in this action or any other case. 

Argument and Authorities 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed by 

court order, at the plaintiff’s request, on terms that the Court considers proper. “The purpose of 

Rule 41(a)(2) ‘is primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side, 

and to permit the imposition of curative conditions.’ Accordingly the courts have generally 

followed the traditional principle that dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will 

suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. It is not a bar 

to dismissal that plaintiff may obtain some tactical advantage thereby.” Manshack v. 

Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 915 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting 9 WRIGHT & 

MILLER’S FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2364 (1st ed. 1971)). In the absence of plain 

legal prejudice to the defendant, the court should generally grant the plaintiff’s request for even 

an unconditional dismissal “absent some evidence of abuse.” Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 

279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002). 

Granting this motion will not unfairly affect Kuhrt because he will suffer no plain legal 

prejudice, or even the possibility of a second lawsuit, as the SEC asks the Court to dismiss the 

action against Kuhrt with prejudice. Moreover, since Kuhrt has asserted no counterclaims against 

the SEC, the Court is not required to analyze whether any such claims could have remained 

pending for independent adjudication following the voluntary dismissal of the SEC’s action. See 

FED R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). 

WHEREFORE, the SEC respectfully requests that the Court enter an order in the form 

Case 3:09-cv-00298-N     Document 3543     Filed 09/18/25      Page 2 of 4     PageID 107656



  
 3 
 

submitted herewith dismissing with prejudice the SEC’s claims against Kuhrt, with each party to 

bear their own fees and costs. 

Dated:   September 18, 2025   Respectfully submitted,  
      
/s/ Jason J. Rose 

 JASON J. ROSE 
Texas Bar No. 24007946  
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION 
Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900 
801 Cherry Street, Unit 18 
Fort Worth, Texas 76102 
(817) 978-1408 (jjr) 
(817) 978-4927 (facsimile) 
[email protected]  

 
     ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 
     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
     COMMISSION 

 
 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 
 
 I certify that on September 11, 12, 16, and 18, 2025, I conferred by email with John M. 
Helms, Jr., counsel for Mark Kuhrt, regarding the relief sought herein. The SEC submits this 
motion as opposed because opposing counsel has not responded regarding his client’s position. 
 
 

/s/ Jason J. Rose 
      Jason J. Rose 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Case 3:09-cv-00298-N     Document 3543     Filed 09/18/25      Page 3 of 4     PageID 107657



4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on September 18, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 
the Clerk of the Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, using the CM/ECF 
system. The ECF system will send a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to all counsel of record who 
has consented in writing to accept service of this document by electronic means.  

I further certify that on September 19, 2025, I will serve a true and correct copy of the 
foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by depositing a copy thereof in an 
authorized UPS depository at Fort Worth, Texas, with overnight express charges prepaid and 
addressed to the following parties, and also mail a true and correct copy by United States 
Postal Certified Mail, Return Receipt required to the persons noticed below who are non-CM/
ECF participants:   

R. Allen Stanford, Pro Se
Inmate #35017183
Coleman II USP
Post Office Box 1034
Coleman, FL 33521
Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt
Requested

R. Allen Stanford, Pro Se
Inmate #35017183
Coleman II USP
846 NE 54th Terrace
Sumterville, FL 33521
Via UPS, Overnight Mail

/s/ Jason J. Rose 
Jason J. Rose 

Case 3:09-cv-00298-N     Document 3543     Filed 09/18/25      Page 4 of 4     PageID 107658