Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ishopnomarkup.com, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 292 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 293 Motion for Reconsideration : Knight's motions for reconsideration are denied. See attached Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge Denis R. Hurley on 12/8/2016. (Copy mailed to Knight by Chambers) (Gapinski, Michele)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-againstISHOPNOMARKUP.COM, INC, SCOTT
W. BROCKOP, ANTHONY M. KNIGHT,
and MOUSSA YEROUSHALMI a/k/a
For the Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
3 World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281
Christopher J. Dunnigan, Esq.
For the Defendant:
Anthony M. Knight, pro se
330 A Street
San Diego, CA 92101
HURLEY, Senior District Judge:
In an order dated September 3, 2015, the Court denied Anthony Knight’s (“Knight”)
motion for a new trial (“September Order”) and entered judgment against Knight imposing
disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,819,140.23, a civil penalty in the
amount of $330,000, an officer and director bar, and an injunction against violating antifraud
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. (Docket
Entries (“DE”) 269, 270.) In an Order dated October 28, 2015 (“October Order”), the Court
found that Knight was not entitled to a stay of judgment pending appeal and denied Knight’s
request for additional time to file a motion for reconsideration of the September Order. (DE
283.) Subsequently, in an opinion dated August 18, 2016 (DE 291, “the Reconsideration Order”)
the Court denied (1) Knight’s motion to reconsider the portion of the October Order denying his
request for a stay of judgment (DE 285) and (2) his motion to reconsider the portion of the
October Order denying his request for an extension of the deadline for filing a motion to
reconsider the September Order (DE 286).
Presently before the Court are Knight’s motions (DEs 292, 294) to reconsider the Court’s
Reconsideration Order. Those motions are denied. There is no procedural vehicle for the
reconsideration of a motion for reconsideration. Chesney v. Valley Stream Union Free Sch.
Dist., 2009 WL 3245384, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009). Moreover, even if reconsideration was
available, Knight has not met the strict standard for reconsideration as he has not presented any
newly discovered evidence or authority evidencing a change in the law that would alter the
Court’s previous decision. U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., 182 F.R.D.
97, 100 (S.D.N.Y.1998). Nor has Knight demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary to
prevent manifest injustice. Id. Furthermore, he has not advanced any “new arguments or issues
that could [not] have been raised on the original motion.” Kalamas v. Consumer Solutions REO,
LLC, 2011 WL 6026303, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011). As a result, Knight’s motions for
reconsideration are denied.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 8, 2016
Denis R. Hurley
United States District Judge
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?