Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied Alexandre’s request to pause the case and to appeal without paying fees.
Eddy Alexandre’s request to pause the proceedings and stop the receiver’s actions was denied; the proceedings and the receiver’s distributions were not delayed by this order.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Eddy Alexandre, representing himself, asked the court to pause the civil case and stop the receiver from taking actions based on earlier court orders. He said several motions, appeals, and constitutional issues remained unresolved.
The court said all four motions Alexandre identified had already been decided: the receiver’s distribution plan was approved, and his requests for recusal, permission to file counterclaims and cross-claims, and intervention and removal were denied. The court therefore denied the application, stating that the pending appeals did not justify delaying the case or the receiver’s distributions.
Judge Valerie Caproni also certified that any immediate appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Alexandre permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- May 16, 2025
Background
Eddy Alexandre, acting without a lawyer, filed an emergency application seeking two forms of relief: a stay, meaning a pause in the civil proceedings, and an injunction preventing the court-appointed receiver from taking further actions based on the court’s orders. His filing asserted that four matters remained unresolved: a request to file counterclaims and cross-claims against the receiver, a request for Judge Caproni’s recusal, an objection to the receiver’s distribution plan, and a request to intervene in and remove a related state-court lawsuit.
Alexandre’s filing also challenged the court’s treatment of EminiFX as a Ponzi scheme and argued that factual issues should be decided by a jury. The opinion’s ruling, however, focused on whether the matters he identified were still pending and whether the proceedings should be delayed.
Court’s Ruling
The court denied the application. It stated that none of the four motions described by Alexandre as outstanding was actually pending because the court had already ruled on each one:
- On January 21, 2025, the court granted the receiver’s motion to approve the distribution plan. - On March 13, 2025, the court denied Alexandre’s motion for recusal. - On April 9, 2025, the court denied Alexandre’s motion for leave to file counterclaims and cross-claims against the receiver. - On May 1, 2025, the court denied Alexandre’s motion to intervene and remove the related action.
The court further stated that Alexandre’s pursuit of what it called frivolous immediate appeals of some of those motions did not justify delaying the proceedings or interfering with the receiver’s distributions.
Appeal Without Prepayment of Fees
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any immediate appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying the required fees on an immediate appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Alexandre a copy of the order and record the mailing on the docket.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.