United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Iftikar Ahmed

Summary

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut denied Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend post-remand orders concerning supplemental disgorgement interest and assets available to satisfy the judgment against Iftikar Ahmed. The court held that the motion was timely and properly brought under Rule 59(e), but found no clear error, manifest injustice, intervening change in controlling law, or newly available evidence. The motion was denied with prejudice.

Holdings

1. A motion challenging substantive post-judgment orders concerning the designation of assets to satisfy a judgment may be brought under Rule 59(e), and the motion was timely because it was filed within 28 days of the challenged orders.
2. Relief under Rule 59(e) was unwarranted because the movant identified no intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
3. A party may not use a Rule 59(e) motion to raise arguments or facts that could have been presented in prior briefing and were not based on newly available evidence or a change in controlling law.
4. Previously presented and rejected arguments do not warrant Rule 59(e) relief absent an intervening change in controlling law or newly available evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the motion challenging the post-remand orders was properly brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the post-remand orders should be altered or amended because of an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
3. Whether the movant could raise new arguments and evidence, or repeat previously rejected arguments, in a Rule 59(e) motion.

Disposition

other