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)

Download PDF
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?