Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied Alexandre’s application because the court lacked jurisdiction to affect the state-court action.
Eddy Alexandre’s requests to intervene in the federal case and remove the related state-court action.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Eddy Alexandre, acting without a lawyer, asked to join the federal case and move a related state-court action to federal court. He said the state case overlapped with the federal litigation involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and a court-appointed receiver.
Alexandre argued that the state case involved allegations connected to his conduct and that separate proceedings could produce wasted effort or conflicting results. He also asked that his home address and telephone numbers be kept confidential.
Judge Caproni denied the application. She stated that the court had no jurisdiction to issue orders affecting the state-court action described in Alexandre’s filing; the clerk was directed to mail him the order and record that mailing.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- May 1, 2025
Background
Eddy Alexandre, acting pro se, meaning without a lawyer, filed an application in the federal action involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Alexandre, and EminiFX, Inc. The filing sought two principal forms of relief: permission for Alexandre to intervene, meaning join the case as a party, and removal, meaning transfer, of a related action from New York State Supreme Court to the Southern District of New York. The filing also requested protection for Alexandre’s home address and telephone numbers.
Alexandre’s Position
Alexandre argued that the state-court action brought by the receiver involved allegations connected to the same events and federal litigation. He asserted that the proceedings were duplicative, that the cases raised overlapping issues, and that he had a significant interest because the state-court complaint allegedly mentioned him even though he was not named as a party. He asked the federal court to allow intervention, order removal of the state-court action, and direct that his identifying information be sealed.
Ruling
The court denied the application. Judge Valerie Caproni stated: “This Court has no jurisdiction to issue orders affecting the state court action described in this submission.” The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Alexandre and note the mailing on the docket. The order does not separately address the merits of Alexandre’s intervention arguments, the legal propriety of removal, or his confidentiality request.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.