United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 173

ORDER: Relief Defendants' Motion 167 is GRANTED.(Poueymirou, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
:
EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
:
IFTIKAR AHMED,
:
:
Defendant, and
:
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP,
:
Civil Action No.
:
3:15-CV-675 (JBA)
I-CUBED DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED;
:
SHALINI AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED
:
ANNUITY TRUST; DIYA HOLDINGS LLC;
:
DIYA REAL HOLDINGS, LLC; I.I. 1, a minor
child, by and through his next friends IFTIKA and
:
SHALINI AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a minor child, :
by and through his next friends IFTIKAR and
:
SHALINI AHMED, his parents; and I.I. 3, a minor
:
child, by and through his next friends IFTIKAR and :
SHALINI AHMED, his parents,
:
:
:
Relief Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
ORDER REGARDING RELIEF DEFENDANTS’ PENDING
MOTION TO MODIFY THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Relief Defendants I-Cubed Domains, LLC, Shalini Ahmed, Shalini Ahmed 2014 Grantor
Retained Annuity Trust, DIYA Holdings LLC, DIYA Real Holdings, LLC, I.I.1, I.I.2 and I.I.3
(the “Relief Defendants”) have filed a motion [Doc. # 148] requesting modification of the
preliminary injunction in this case by releasing frozen funds for the payment of debts, reasonable
living expenses, and legal fees in this matter. Relief Defendants have also previously appealed
this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order [Doc. # 113] granting a preliminary injunction, and that

1

appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit under the caption
SEC v. I-Cubed Domains, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-2658.
In response to Relief Defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction, the SEC
asserted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion because of Relief Defendants’
pending appeal, but also indicated that it would consent to a motion to hold the appeal in
abeyance and for a limited remand to this Court to resolve the pending motion for modification
of the preliminary injunction. Relief Defendants have asserted that the Court still has jurisdiction
over the motion to modify the preliminary injunction because it is collateral to the subject of the
appeal. Relief Defendants have nevertheless filed a motion in the Court of Appeals requesting
that the Court of Appeals hold Relief Defendants’ appeal in abeyance and remand the case to this
Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 for consideration of the pending
motion for modification of the preliminary injunction, and the SEC consented to the relief
sought.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 addresses indicative rulings on motions for relief
that are barred by a pending appeal and provides that “[i]f a timely motion is made for relief that
the court lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the
court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny the motion; or (3) state either that it would
grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose of that the motion raises a
substantial issue.” See also 12 James W. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 62.1.10[2]
(“The rules governing indicative-ruling procedure . . . apply only if a pending appeal bars the
district court from granting the relief sought in a postjudgment motion.”). If the district court
states that it would grant the motion or that the motion raises a substantial issue, “the movant
must promptly notify the circuit clerk” pursuant to Rule 12.1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(b).

2

Relief Defendants have requested [Doc. # 167] that this Court issue such a statement, and
the SEC, without waiving any of its arguments in opposition to Relief Defendants’ motion to
modify the preliminary injunction, has consented to the issuance of such a statement. Because
Ms. Ahmed’s motion to modify the preliminary injunction pertains to her need for limited
funding to cover outstanding debts, living expenses, and legal fees at this present time, this Court
hereby states that Relief Defendants’ motion to modify the preliminary injunction [Docket No.
148] “raises a substantial issue” as that phrase is used in Rule 62.1(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Dated:

1/11/2016

/s/
United States District Judge

3