Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre

Background

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought this case against Eddy Alexandre and EminiFX, Inc. Alexandre, representing himself, sought permission to file a counterclaim and cross-claim against David Castleman, the receiver hired by the CFTC and appointed by the court. The court had previously denied that request. Alexandre then moved for reconsideration of that ruling.

Alexandre’s arguments

Alexandre argued that the earlier denial was based on an improper evaluation of claims that had not yet been filed. He contended that the ruling violated due-process protections and the right to a jury trial by preventing him from presenting claims and defenses.

He also challenged the receiver’s authority and the court’s handling of the receivership. Among other arguments, he asserted that the court had made factual determinations about EminiFX’s business, including calling it a Ponzi scheme, without a jury or an evidentiary hearing. He renewed a request for the judge’s recusal and reassignment of the case.

Court’s ruling

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that is used sparingly and is available when the court overlooked controlling legal authority or factual matters presented on the earlier motion that might reasonably have changed the result.

The court stated that nothing in Alexandre’s submission cast doubt on its earlier conclusion about his proposed claims, including that they were untimely. The order did not grant permission to file the proposed counterclaim or cross-claim.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any interlocutory appeal of the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal fee for an interlocutory appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Alexandre a copy of the order and note that mailing on the docket.