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