Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-03822
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 27
In Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, Judge Caproni denied Alexandre’s motion to vacate two earlier orders about deadlines and service.
Eddy Alexandre was directly affected because the court left the challenged orders in place and kept his reply deadline at May 10, 2024. The Receiver and the Clerk of Court also received service and mailing instructions.
What happened
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre concerns Eddy Alexandre’s request to undo two earlier orders in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s case against him and EminiFX, Inc. The earlier orders addressed a settlement-related response and deadlines for filings.
Alexandre, who was representing himself, argued that the court wrongly questioned his credibility and that he had not received proper notice through mail of certain deadlines. He also argued that filings sent through the prison mail system should be treated as filed when given to prison officials.
Judge Valerie Caproni denied Alexandre’s motion to vacate or set aside the two orders. The order stated that the application was denied for the reasons given in an earlier May 6 order, and it kept Alexandre’s reply deadline at May 10, 2024.
The detailed version
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre · No. 1:22-cv-03822
- Valerie Caproni
- May 10, 2024
Background
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission brought this action against Eddy Alexandre and EminiFX, Inc. The supplied materials refer to several earlier orders concerning a proposed settlement involving the court-appointed Receiver, Alexandre’s response deadlines, service of filings, and Alexandre’s decision to proceed without a lawyer.
One earlier order required Alexandre to respond to the Receiver’s request for approval of a settlement agreement. Other orders addressed deadlines for Alexandre’s response and reply. The materials also show that the court gave Alexandre a one-week extension after expressing skepticism about his claim that he had not received an order setting a deadline.
Alexandre’s motion
Alexandre asked the court to vacate or set aside Orders at Docket Numbers 290 and 300. He argued that the court had unfairly attacked his credibility instead of resolving factual disputes through an evidentiary hearing. He also argued that an email from the Receiver reminding him of a deadline did not constitute formal service, and that mail service by the Clerk was required because he was not an electronic-filing participant.
Alexandre further relied on the prison-mailbox rule, which treats a self-represented prisoner’s filing as timely when the prisoner gives it to prison officials within the applicable deadline. He maintained that his filing should therefore have been treated as timely. He also argued that he had been denied a meaningful opportunity to respond to matters involving the Receiver.
Court’s action
The court denied the application. The endorsed order states that the application was denied for the reasons set out in the court’s May 6 order at Docket Number 309. It also states that Alexandre’s reply deadline was May 10, 2024. The Receiver was directed to send Alexandre the endorsement through the CorrLinks system and file proof of that email service, and the Clerk of Court was directed to mail Alexandre a copy of the endorsed order and record the mailing on the docket.
Effect of the ruling
The ruling left the two challenged orders in place and did not grant Alexandre’s request for a new order restoring his credibility. This was a ruling on whether to undo earlier procedural orders; the supplied text does not show a decision on the underlying claims in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s action.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.