United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS'
MOTIONS TO AMEND AND CLARIFY THE JUDGMENT
JANET
BOND ARTERTON, U.S.D.J.
In
granting Plaintiffs Motion for Remedies and Judgment, the
Court directed the SEC to "file a proposed Order of
Final Judgment," (Ruling on PL's Mot. for Remedies
and J. [Doc. # 955] at 32 n.28), which the SEC subsequently
did, (SEC's Proposed Final J. [Doc. # 960]). Relief
Defendants and Defendant submitted their objections to the
SEC's proposed judgment, ([Docs. # 962, 963]), to which
the SEC replied, ([Doc. # 981]). The Court then entered a
Final Judgment against Mr. Ahmed, ([Doc. # 982]), and issued
a ruling addressing the disputes identified in the
parties' submissions regarding the proposed judgment,
([Doc. # 986]). Both the Relief Defendants and the SEC now
move separately for amendments of the judgment entered by the
Court. (Rel. Defs.' Mot. to Alter or Amend J. [Doc.
#1013]; SEC's Mot. for Order Clarifying Final J. [Doc. #
1034].)
I.
RELIEF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT
The
Relief Defendants move under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) for an
amendment of the Final Judgment "(i) to incorporate the
conclusions [the Court] reaches on unresolved issues
following the" November 28, 2018, hearing, and
"(if) to expressly state that it is entered against
Relief Defendants and fully and finally resolves Counts Seven
through Fourteen of the Second Amendment Complaint."
(Rel. Defs.' Mot. to Amend at 1.) Relief Defendants argue
that these modifications of the judgment are necessary to
"avoid questions of multiple, piecemeal appeals which
might otherwise arise" and so that appeals by Relief
Defendants "maybe taken in the normal course."
(Rel. Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. to Amend [Doc. # 1013-1] at
2-3.)
Mr.
Ahmed joins the Relief Defendants in their request to amend
the judgment. (Def.'s Resp. to Rel. Defs.' Mot. [Doc.
# 1014] at 1.)
The SEC
opposed the Relief Defendants' motion, arguing (i) that
it is improperly styled as a Rule 59(e) motion because it
does not genuinely seek reconsideration of the Court's
rulings; (ii) that the Relief Defendants' proposed
modifications of the judgment are enforcement questions which
cannot be finalized until the judgment is executed or are
"proper post-judgment items that do not need to be
incorporated into the final judgment"; and (iii) that
the judgment is not a final judgment against the Relief
Defendants because "there are technically still
outstanding claims against Relief Defendants under the
traditional Cavanaugh analysis" which the SEC
argued in the alternative and which the Court did not need to
reach in its summary judgment rulings. (SEC's Opp. to
Rel. Defs.' Mot. [Doc. # 1023] at 3-4.)
During
the November 28, 2018 hearing, counsel for the Relief
Defendants reiterated their requests to clarify that the
judgment is against the Relief Defendants and to include in
an amended final judgment the Court's decision regarding
whether Mr. Ahmed is also liable for interest or gains on
disgorged frozen assets, but acknowledged that the
Court's decisions on other enforcement-related questions,
e.g. the appointment of a receiver, need not be included in
the judgment. Counsel for the SEC represented that its only
concern with such an amendment is that, if the Court's
ruling regarding the Relief Defendants' liability as
nominees is overturned on appeal, the SEC seeks to ensure
that it is not precluded from litigating the merits of its
alternative theory of the Relief Defendants' liability,
i.e. the traditional Cavanaugh theory of liability.
Pursuant
to this agreement with the parties and in the interest of
judicial efficiency to avoid the possibility of piecemeal
appeals, the Court will amend the Final Judgment [Doc. # 955]
to incorporate its ruling [Doc. #1051] that Mr. Ahmed is
liable for gains accrued on disgorged frozen assets and to
indicate that it is a final judgment against both Defendant
and the Relief Defendants. Such amendment reflects the
Court's holdings in its rulings on summary judgment but
does not extinguish the SEC's remaining alternative
Cavanaugh theory of liability against the Relief
Defendants.
II.
SEC'S MOTION TO CLARIFY THE JUDGMENT
The SEC
moves "for an order nunc pro tunc clarifying
the September 27, 2018 Final Judgment against Iftikar Ahmed
[Doc. # 987] was in fact a final judgment," noting that
it "would have been prudent for the SEC to include
specific Rule 54(b) language in the proposed final
judgment." (SEC's Mot. to Clarify J. [Doc. # 1034]
at 1.) The SEC seeks this amendment or clarification to
"eliminate the risk that Defendant (or Relief
Defendants) will attempt to use the absence of such language
to delay this matter on appeal, and to make clear that the
court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider this
Court's judgment." (Id. at 1-2.)
Defendant
and Relief Defendants have not opposed the SEC's motion.
In the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court will modify
the Final Judgment to incorporate the Rule 54(b) language as
requested by the SEC.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the
reasons stated above, the Relief Defendants' Motion to
Amend the Judgment [Doc. #1013] is GRANTED as modified in
open court on November 28, and the SEC's ...