United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al
Filing
2041
Order denying Defendant's Rule 60(B) Motion for Relief from Amended Final Judgment 1567 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 8/2/2021. (McHugh, C.)
Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2041 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
Defendant, and
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI AHMED August 2, 2021
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.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S RULE 60(B) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AMENDED
FINAL JUDGMENT
On March 29, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff Securities and Exchange
Commission’s (SEC) Motion for Summary Judgment, finding Defendant liable for defrauding
eleven companies, including his employer Oak Management (“Oak”), and depositing over
$64 million of illegally obtained profits into accounts for his personal use. (See generally
Ruling on All Parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment on Liability [Doc. # 835] at 6-23.)
Over two years later, on June 9, 2020, Defendant moved for relief from the judgment,
arguing that Oak should be held responsible for the disgorgement award because it
“deliberately and selfishly did not implement any internal control and processes and
deliberately overlooked any alleged misdoings . . . [and] failed to raise any red flags or
implement compliance procedures and processes that were required.” (Def.’s R. 60(B) Mot.
for Relief from Am. Final J. and Order [Doc. # 1567] at 5.) In essence, Defendant argues that
Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2041 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 3
his employer’s conduct should release him of liability for his misdeeds because it failed to
catch him before the SEC intervened.
A motion for relief from judgment may be granted for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Motions claiming “reasons (1), (2), and (3) [must be brought] no more
than a year after the entry of the judgment.” Id. Reasons (4) and (5) do not apply here.
Thus, Defendant necessarily brought his claim under the catch-all “other reason” (6). (See
Def.’s Mot. at 2.)
However, Defendant’s many theories of why he should escape liability fall far short
of the “extraordinary circumstances” necessary for a court to grant a motion under Rule
60(b)(6). See Stevens v. Miller, 676 F.3d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Recognizing Rule 60(b)(6)'s
potentially sweeping reach, courts require the party seeking to avail itself of the Rule to
demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant relief. Of particular concern is that
parties may attempt to use Rule 60(b)(6) to circumvent the one-year time limitation in
other subsections of Rule 60(b).”). Here, Defendant chose to abscond to India, permit his
legal representative to withdraw [Doc. # 210], proceed pro se [Doc. # 211], and, of course,
conduct the fraudulent activities that landed him in this position. Defendant’s
circumstances may be extraordinary, but they are also entirely of his own making, and the
Court will not disrupt the finality of a judgment to reflect Defendant’s attempts to deflect
his responsibility to one of his victims. See Stevens, 676 F.3d at 68 (affirming the denial of
2
Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2041 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 3
the state’s Rule 60(B)(6) motion because “the State's [] motion is, at bottom, premised on
its own mistake, inadvertence, and neglect”).
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Amended Judgment [Doc. # 1567] is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/_______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 2nd day of August 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?