United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2111

ORDER denying 2105 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/2/2021. (Canevari, D.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
December 2, 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.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On August 2, 2021, the Court denied Defendant Iftikar Ahmed’s Motion for Attorney’s
Fees [Doc. # 2040]. Mr. Ahmed then moved for clarification [Doc. # 2042] and
reconsideration [Doc. # 2049] of that Order, and the Court denied both motions on
November 5, 2021 [Doc. # 2099]. Mr. Ahmed now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s
November 5th Order, denying his Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Clarification.
(Def.’s Renewed Mot. for Clarification and Mot. for Reconsideration of Order # 2099 (“Def.’s
Renewed Mot.”) [Doc. # 2105].)
By way of a “renewed motion,” Mr. Ahmed seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial
of his motion for clarification, and “requests clarification on what the Defendant can and
should file that this Court would accept as ‘independently verifiable evidence.’” (Id. at 1.) He
states that Ms. Ahmed cannot provide verifiable evidence on the subject as she is not with

1

him in India. (Id. at 3-4.) Mr. Ahmed previously requested “clarification and guidance” on
what amounts to “material and objectively verifiable corroboration,” (Def.’s Mot. For
Clarification [Doc. # 2042] at 1), and the Court concluded that its previous Order was
sufficiently clear and that clarification was unnecessary. (Order Denying Def.’s Mot. for
Clarification & Mot. for Reconsideration [Doc. # 2099] at 2.) Mr. Ahmed claims that the Court
overlooked the fact that his requested fees “will not impact the over-securitization of the
SEC’s judgment amount” and the fact that the Court previously released funds for fees
incurred by the same attorney. (Id. at 2-3.) These considerations do not alter the Court’s
previous conclusion that clarification is unnecessary. Mr. Ahmed is relitigating an issue
already decided, Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995), and as such, his
motion for reconsideration fails.
In his motion, Mr. Ahmed also seeks reconsideration of the Court’s denial of
reconsideration. Such a motion is improper. See Fret v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc., No. SA-15CV-00710-OLG, 2017 WL 5653905, at * 5 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2017) (“The federal rules do
not provide for a motion requesting a reconsideration of a denial of reconsideration.”). Even
if the Court considered the merits of Mr. Ahmed’s motion for reconsideration, he has not
provided the Court with “independently verifiable of evidence of [his] claimed indigency that
was unavailable at the time of his motion for attorney’s fees,” (Order Denying Def.’s Mot. for
Clarification & Mot. for Reconsideration [Doc. # 2099] at 4), and the matters Mr. Ahmed
claims the Court has “overlooked” do not lead the Court to abandon its prior conclusion.

2

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Ahmed’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. # 2105] is
DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/___________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 2nd day of December 2021.

3