Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lee

Background

The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Richard Lee in a complaint charging him with fraud. Lee later consented to a Final Judgment dated November 21, 2019. In a letter filed on March 19, 2025, Lee asked for permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate that Final Judgment. Lee represented himself. The SEC filed a response, Lee filed a reply, and the court heard oral argument on July 9, 2025.

Reasons for Denial

Rule 60(b)(6) is a provision allowing a court to grant relief from a final judgment for an exceptional reason not covered by the rule’s other provisions. The court concluded that Lee’s proposed motion was untimely. He waited about five years after consenting to the Final Judgment, and the court found that five years was not a reasonable time. Lee did not provide a valid explanation for the delay.

The court also concluded that Lee had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court explained that such circumstances typically do not exist when a party does not seek relief promptly. It further stated that the standard is even harder to meet when a defendant seeks to disturb a consent judgment. The court found no evidence of extraordinary circumstances in Lee’s written submissions or oral arguments.

Disposition

The court denied Defendant Lee’s request to file a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to vacate the Final Judgment. This was a ruling on the request to pursue relief from the existing judgment, not a new decision on the underlying fraud allegations.