Securities And Exchange Commission v. Amundsen
Filing
83
ORDER DENYING PETITION TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Hon. William Alsup denying 82 Ex Parte Application.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
No. C 83-00711 WHA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
ORDER DENYING PETITION
TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT
INJUNCTION
v.
JOSEPH S. AMUNDSEN,
Defendant.
/
17
18
Pro se defendant Joseph Amundsen has filed a motion entitled “Petition to Dissolve
19
Permanent Injunction.” The background of this action is found in prior orders (see, e.g., Dkt.
20
No. 39). In brief, this action was reassigned from Judge Robert Aguilar to the undersigned
21
judge in 2010. That came after defendant, a then-certified public accountant, had voluntarily
22
signed a consent “Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction” with the SEC, due to defendant’s
23
deficient audit report on a financial statement for Olympic Oil and Gas Company. As a result,
24
the 1983 consent judgment permanently enjoined defendant from “appearing or practicing
25
before the Commission in any way,” among other things (Dkt. No. 3 at 3). On May 16, 2017,
26
the undersigned judge denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of a prior
27
petition to vacate the injunction (Dkt. No. 81).
28
In this most recent letter, it does not appear that Amundsen seeks dissolution of his
injunction from appearing or practicing before the SEC, but instead asks the Court for
1
permission to “open[] and review[] . . . evidence and testimony in a related case” insofar as it
2
pertains to his case. In the alternative, Amundsen asks the Court or the SEC to provide him
3
guidance about the parameters of the permanent injunction entered against him in this action.
4
It is not clear what Amundsen seeks from this Court with respect to his request to open
Amundsen v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San
7
Francisco, No. 13-71472, in which the appellate commissioner declined to reinstate
8
Amundsen’s petition No. 13-71472, and took no action regarding Amundsen’s request to “use a
9
Ninth Circuit decision on 13-71472 to petition the District Court for injunctive relief.” The
10
Court declines to reopen and review evidence in Amundsen’s action, which has been fully
11
For the Northern District of California
and review evidence and testimony. Amundsen refers the Court to an attached order, Joseph S.
6
United States District Court
5
litigated, and is closed. To the extent Amundsen’s letter can be read as a request that the Court
12
vacate his injunction, his request is DENIED.
13
As for Amundsen’s request for “guidance,” he is, of course, free to review the docket in
14
this case, which addresses controversies that have arisen with regard to the bounds of the
15
consent decree Amundsen entered into with the SEC (e.g. Dkt. Nos. 3, 37, 39). This Court will
16
not, however, issue any kind of advisory opinion.
17
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
Dated: June 22, 2017.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?