S.E.C. v. Stewart

Background

On August 31, 2021, the court granted the Securities and Exchange Commission’s motion to hold Defendant Allen Gottlieb in contempt of court. The court later entered a written order summarizing remedial sanctions imposed at that hearing to compel Gottlieb’s compliance with the final judgment in the action.

Gottlieb filed several motions and supplements seeking reconsideration of the contempt order. In an emergency motion, he also sought to stay or set aside that order. The court considered filings at docket numbers 367, 368, 371, 372, 379, 381, 384, and 385. The Commission filed an opposition.

Jurisdiction to Consider the Motions

Gottlieb had filed a notice of appeal, followed by an amended notice of appeal. The court explained that an appeal ordinarily limits the district court’s control over the parts of a case involved in the appeal. But a timely motion for reconsideration is an exception: it postpones the effectiveness of the notice of appeal until the district court rules on the reconsideration motion.

Although the docket dates appeared to place the notice of appeal before the reconsideration motion, the filings showed that Gottlieb submitted the reconsideration motion first. The court therefore treated the reconsideration motion as filed before the notice of appeal. It added that it would still have jurisdiction to consider the motions even if the docket dates controlled.

Reconsideration Standard and Ruling

The court treated the collective filings as motions for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The moving party must also show that the court overlooked controlling law or facts that could reasonably have changed the decision. The court stated that reconsideration is not a means of relitigating issues already considered.

The court found that Gottlieb did not identify any qualifying change in law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. It concluded that the motions repeated arguments the court had already heard and reviewed at length. The court denied the motions, including filings at docket numbers 367 and 368 to the extent they supported the reconsideration requests, and directed the clerk to close the open motions at docket numbers 367, 368, 371, 372, 379, 381, 384, and 385.