S.E.C. v. Stewart

Background

The court considered Mr. Eisemann’s motion for reconsideration of its January 17, 2025, order, along with letters from the Gottliebs supporting the motion. The Securities and Exchange Commission opposed the request. The earlier order had limited the scope of Professor Romley’s testimony.

Arguments

Mr. Eisemann argued that the court had misunderstood the relationship between the replacement-cost approach and the foregone-earnings approach. He said the foregone-earnings analysis was relevant to replacement cost because Mrs. Gottlieb’s past earning power could serve as a proxy for her overall skill level in determining what others would have charged to provide the services she performed.

The court was unpersuaded. It stated that Mrs. Gottlieb’s skills in home renovation and publishing were hardly relevant to caring for her son. The court also rejected the suggestion that Mr. Eisemann’s threat of appeal justified receiving testimony the court had deemed irrelevant merely to create a complete record for possible review by the Court of Appeals.

Ruling

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally reserved for situations involving an overlooked controlling decision or fact, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It concluded that Mr. Eisemann and the Gottliebs had identified no legal basis for reconsideration and were seeking another opportunity to litigate an issue already decided.

Judge Loretta A. Preska therefore denied Mr. Eisemann and the Gottliebs’ motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to close docket entries 576, 581, and 582.