United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 1875

Endorsement Order denying 1546 Relief Defendants' Motion to Strike Harris St. Laurent's Response. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 04/07/21. (McHugh, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
April 7, 2021
Defendant, and
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI AHMED
2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUNITY TRUST;
DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL HOLDINGS, LLC;
I.I. 1, a minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR 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.
ENDORSEMENT ORDER DENYING RELIEF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE HARRIS
ST. LAURENT’S RESPONSE
Relief Defendants move to strike Harris St. Laurent’s (HSL) response [Doc. # 1543]
to Relief Defendants’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees [Doc. # 1537]. (Relief Defs.’ Mot. to Strike
HSL’s Response [Doc. # 1546]; see also Relief Defs.’ Mot. for Release of Funds for Atty’s Fees
to Retain Counsel for HS Arbitration [Doc. # 1537]; HSL’s Response re Mot. for Release of
Funds [Doc. # 1543].) They argue that HSL, as a non-party, failed to file the “necessary”
motion to intervene before filing a notice on the docket. (Relief Defs.’ Mot. to Strike at 2.)
While Relief Defendants are correct that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly
permit only those designated as parties to file motions and pleadings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7,
there is little case law available about whether non-parties may file documents or other
responsive notices. See DRFP, LLC v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, No. 2:04-CV-793,
2012 WL 995288, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 22, 2012) (“[T]here is little precedent which deals

with the issue of when a non-party may properly file some document with the Court.”).
However, the discretion of the trial court to grant or deny a motion to strike is wellestablished and typically only viable where the pleading will result in prejudice to the
nonmoving party. Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15-16 (D. Conn. 2013); see
also MC1 Healthcare, Inc. v. United Health Grp., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01909 (KAD), 2019 WL
2015949, at *11 (D. Conn. May 7, 2019). Relief Defendants have made no attempt to
demonstrate how HSL’s notice prejudices or otherwise impacts their interests in the
proceedings. Accordingly, Relief Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Doc. # 1546] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/_______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 7th day of April 2021.

2