Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied Alexandre’s extension request and left the settlement approval and communication order in place.
Eddy Alexandre, EminiFX, Inc., the court-appointed receiver, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and 34th Suites LLC.
What happened
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, a court-appointed receiver asked the court to approve a settlement involving 34th Suites LLC and EminiFX, Inc. The court ordered Eddy Alexandre to respond by April 12, 2024, and to add the receiver as an approved contact in the CorrLinks system.
Alexandre, who was representing himself and was incarcerated, opposed the settlement and asked for more time. He argued that the settlement should protect him from liability because he had guaranteed EminiFX’s lease. He also argued that being required to receive the receiver’s communications through CorrLinks violated his First Amendment rights.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Alexandre’s request for more time. She declined to change the earlier order approving the settlement, finding the agreement fair and reasonable as a resolution of 34th Suites LLC’s claim against EminiFX. Judge Caproni also ruled that requiring Alexandre to receive the receiver’s communications by email did not violate his First Amendment rights.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 24, 2024
Background
A court-appointed receiver asked the court for permission to enter a settlement agreement with 34th Suites LLC. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission consented to the settlement. The receiver represented EminiFX, Inc. and told the court that he had not consulted Eddy Alexandre before seeking approval.
On April 2, 2024, the court ordered Alexandre to respond by April 12 and to add the receiver as an approved contact in the CorrLinks system. The receiver later reported that Alexandre had contacted him through CorrLinks and had said he did not consent to the settlement. The receiver reminded Alexandre of the response deadline. The court did not receive Alexandre’s response by the deadline, including the additional mailing time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On April 18, 2024, the court approved the settlement and authorized the receiver to enter into it. The receiver then received a document from Alexandre dated April 11 and postmarked April 12. Alexandre’s response was filed with the court on April 23.
Alexandre’s arguments
Alexandre argued that the settlement should not have been approved because it did not indemnify him, even though he had guaranteed EminiFX’s lease. He also argued that the order requiring him to add the receiver as a CorrLinks contact violated his First Amendment rights. Alexandre said he had not received the April 2 order and requested an extension of time to respond.
Ruling
The court denied Alexandre’s request for an extension of time. Judge Valerie Caproni stated that Alexandre had to comply with court-ordered deadlines despite representing himself and being incarcerated. The court was skeptical that Alexandre had not received the April 2 order because that same order required him to add the receiver as a contact, and the receiver reported that Alexandre had done so by April 10. The court characterized the request for more time as another delay tactic.
After reviewing Alexandre’s arguments, the court declined to disturb its earlier order authorizing the receiver to settle with 34th Suites LLC and approving the settlement agreement. The court found that the agreement was a fair and reasonable resolution of 34th Suites LLC’s claim against EminiFX. It also explained that the receiver represented EminiFX only and had no authority or obligation to negotiate claims against Alexandre personally.
The court further ruled that requiring Alexandre to receive the receiver’s communications by email rather than postal mail did not violate the First Amendment, including its protections for free speech and freedom of association. The clerk was directed to mail Alexandre a copy of the order and record the mailing on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.