United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al
Filing
1964
ORDER denying 1845 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 05/12/21. (McHugh, C.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
May 12, 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.
RULING DENYING RELIEF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF RULING
DENYING RELIEF DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR INJUNCTION OF DOJ
ACTION AND RELATED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
Relief Defendants move the Court to reconsider its denial [Doc. # 1821] of their
motion seeking an injunction halting declaration of bond forfeiture in the District of
Massachusetts [Doc. # 1327] and related motion for attorney’s fees [Doc. # 1335]. (Relief
Defs.’ Mot. for Reconsideration of R. Denying Relief Defs.’ Emerg. Mot. for Injunc. of DOJ
Action and Related Mot. for Atty’s Fees [Doc. # 1845].)1
As grounds for reconsideration, Relief Defendants argue that the Court
misconstrued its own initial asset freeze because the Greenwich home had not yet been
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Receiver note that “[n]o response to a motion for
reconsideration need be filed unless requested by the Court.” D. Conn. L. R. 7(c); (see Receiver’s Response to
Relief Defs.’ Mot. for Reconsideration [Doc. # 1900]; Pl. SEC’s Obj. to Relief Defs.’ Mot. for Reconsideration [Doc.
# 1903]). No responses were requested by this Court and, going forward, the SEC and Receiver need not file
notices on the record to remind the Court that no responses are required as it unnecessarily clutters the docket.
1
forfeited at the time this Court froze Relief Defendants’ assets and thus was included as a
frozen asset. As support, Relief Defendants quote from subsection E of the Court’s Order
Granting Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 113]:
E. The Commission may record this Order with relevant land records offices or other
relevant institutions on all pieces of real property in which the Defendant or Relief
Defendants have an interest. This order applies, without limitation, to the following
properties: . . .
iv. Real property located at 505 North Street, Greenwich, CT 06830
(Ruling and Order Granting Prelim. Injunc. [Doc. # 113] at 21-22.) Relief Defendants argue
that the phrase “[t]his order applies” indicates that the entirety of the Order Granting
Preliminary Injunction, including a freezing of the assets, applies to the real property.
(Relief Defs.’ Mot. at 2.)
The Court uses “Order,” with a capital “O,” to reference the whole document. The
“order” referenced in the second sentence refers only to the recording authority granted to
the SEC in subsection E, which allows it to record the Order Granting a Preliminary
Injunction with the land records office related to the Greenwich home. As specifically noted
in the Court’s denial of Relief Defendants’ Emergency Motion for an Injunction, because Ms.
Ahmed’s “primary residence in Greenwich [] was the collateral for Mr. Ahmed’s bond in the
insider trading case and was forfeited when he fled the United States, . . . the Court cannot
be assured that [it] will be available to compensate victims at this point.” (Prelim. Injunc. at
14 n.4). Because of this uncertainty, the Court did not include the value of the home in its
assessment of the total amount frozen in the Preliminary Injunction, (see id.), and explicitly
declined to include the home as part of the “Real Property” secured by the Court to satisfy
the judgment against Defendant. (Am. Final J. Against Def. and Relief Defs. [Doc. # 1054] at 5-9
(listing the Essell Farm as the only “Real Property” asset available to satisfy the judgment).) As
such, the Court did not err in its assessment that “from the inception of this action in the
District of Connecticut, the Greenwich property was never included in the asset freeze, nor
2
in the listing of assets available to satisfy the judgment, precisely because it was already
used as the security for Defendant’s bond in the MA Case.” (Ruling Denying Relief Defs.’
Emerg. Mot. at 2.)
Relief Defendants further request reconsideration of the Court’s denial of their
motion for a release of $200,000 to retain counsel for the matter, noting that the District of
Massachusetts acknowledged that Ms. Ahmed “did, as a surety, have the right to move the
MA Court for relief under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.” (Relief Defs.’ Mot. at 4.)
However, this Court was aware of the full District of Massachusetts opinion in denying
Relief Defendants’ motion for fees [Doc. # 1821] and no new grounds warranting
reconsideration are presented.
Relief Defendants are reminded that “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be
routinely filed and . . . will generally be denied unless the movant can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked in the initial decision or order.” D. Conn. L. R.
Civ. P. 7(c). As Relief Defendants have neither identified any new controlling decision or
overlooked data, Relief Defendants’ motion for reconsideration [Doc. # 1845] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/_______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 12th day of May 2021.
3
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?