U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. InovaTrade, Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER. Alcocer's motions, Docs. 25 , 27 , and 29 , are not properly before the Court and must be denied. Signed on 10/24/17 by District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.(Order mailed to Michael Alcocer.)(Matthes Mitra, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES
TRADING COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
INNOVATRADE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:11-cv-00092-NKL

ORDER
This case concerned Defendant Innovatrade, Inc.’s violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act and related regulations. The Court entered judgment against Innovatrade on 7/6/2011 and
the case was closed. Michael Alcocer, who was not a party to the case, has now filed three
motions and a notice. The first motion is to appoint counsel to represent Innovatrade. Doc. 25
(filed 9/8/2017).
Alcocer also filed a “Motion to Establish That Innovatrade Was a Panamanian Forex
Broker Dealer,” in which he argues that the Commodity Exchange Act did not apply to
Innovatrade, Plaintiff U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission lacked standing, and this
Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. Doc. 27 (filed 9/12/2017).
Finally, Alcocer filed a notice of “CFTC[ʼs] Failure to Effect Service to Defendant
Innovatrade Inc.,” Doc. 28 (filed 9/18/2017), and a “Motion to Establish that Michael John
Alcocer Was the CEO of the Florida Subsidiary From I Holding, Inc., and Not the CEO of The
Defendant Innovatrade, Inc.,” Doc. 29 (Doc. 9/18/2017). Alcocer argues that Innovatrade was
not properly served with process; any attempt to have served him with process on behalf of
Innovatrade was not effective because he is not and was not the CEO of Innovatrade; and

Innovatrade was a subsidiary company and was dissolved before the CFTC complaint was filed
and judgment entered herein.

Alcocer argues that the “instant civil enforcement action is

obviously restrained against” the subsidiary. Doc. 29, pp. 2-3 (emphasis in original).
Alcocer is not a party to this case. He is not an attorney and may not file motions on
behalf of Innovatrade. Furthermore, the motions cannot be construed as having been filed by
Innovatrade, because Innovatrade is not represented by any attorney and a corporation cannot
appear pro se in judicial proceedings. United States v. Van Stelton, 988 F.2d 70, 70 (8th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, Alcocer’s motions, Docs. 25, 27, and 29, are not properly before the Court
and must be denied.

s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
United States District Judge
Dated: October 24, 2017
Jefferson City, Missouri

2