United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al
Filing
2069
Order DENYING Motion to Reduce Disgorgement in this Case by the Amount of Judgment in the New York State Proceeding 2033 for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 8/26/2021. (Canevari, D.)
Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2069 Filed 08/26/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
August 26, 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
Defendant requests that this Court reduce the awarded disgorgement order in the
instant case “by the amount rendered against him in the New York State Supreme Court Case
of NMR e-Tailing vs. Oak, et al [sic], Index Number 656450/2017.” (Mot. to Reduce
Disgorgement in this Case by the Amount of J. in the New York State Proceeding [Doc. # 2033]
at 1.) The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) opposes, arguing that the motion is
premature because the New York State judgment was appealed, the Court lacks jurisdiction
to alter the judgment because the Amended Judgment was appealed, and a reduction would
be “inequitable” and “inappropriate.” (Pl. United States Securities and Exchange
Commission’s Opp. [Doc. # 2066] at 5-9.) The Relief Defendants join Defendant’s motion
[Doc. # 2060] and the Receiver takes no position [Doc. # 2055].
Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2069 Filed 08/26/21 Page 2 of 2
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the history of this SEC enforcement
action, but will briefly review the background relevant to this motion. On December 14,
2018, the Court entered an Amended Judgment against Defendant [Doc. # 1054]. Defendant
and Relief Defendants appealed this Judgment [Docs. ## 1100, 1101]. The Second Circuit
granted a limited remand to allow the Court to determine if the disgorgement order was
consistent with § 6501 of the National Defense Authorization Act [Doc. # 1801]. The Court
increased the disgorgement amount [Doc. # 1997] and on July 06, 2021, entered the
Redetermined Final Amended Judgment against Defendant [Doc. # 2011]. Defendant and
Relief Defendants appealed these determinations [Docs. ## 2013, 2019].
The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction. A notice of appeal “confers jurisdiction on
the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). A
district court cannot “act [] impermissibly to modify a judgment substantively,” but can
“clarify its order.” United States v. Viola, 555 F. App’x 57, 59-60 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting United
States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403, 411 (2d Cir. 1995)). In this case, Defendant and Relief
Defendants have appealed the Redetermination of Defendant’s Disgorgement Obligation and
the Amended Judgment, and thus, conferred jurisdiction on the Second Circuit. Reducing the
disgorgement amount by more than $10 million exceeds the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________/s/______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 26th day of August 2021.
2
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?