Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH S. AMUNDSEN,

Defendant. /

No. C 83-00711 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

PARTIALLY VACATE

INJUNCTION AND FOR

RECONSIDERATION

In 1983, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against defendant

Joseph Amundsen, then a certified public accountant, alleging that defendant misrepresented

material facts in audit reports he had prepared in connection with securities of Olympic Oil and

Gas, Inc. Defendant later voluntarily signed a consent “Final Judgment of Permanent

Injunction.” The 1983 consent judgment permanently enjoined defendant from “appearing or

practicing before the Commission in any way” (Dkt. Nos. 1–3). 

In October 2010, defendant brought his first request to vacate the 1983 injunction. The

undersigned judge denied the motion on the ground that defendant had failed to show changed

conditions which would justify a modification of the injunction. Our court of appeals affirmed

this denial (Dkt. Nos. 5, 14, 47).

In November 2011, the SEC brought a motion to find defendant in civil contempt,

alleging that defendant had been appearing and practicing before the SEC as an accountant by

(1) performing audits of securities broker-dealers registered with the SEC and (2) signing forms

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 101 Filed 08/02/18 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

for those broker-dealers knowing that they were required to be, and would be, filed with the

SEC. An order dated January 19, 2012, granted in part and denied in part the SEC’s motion. 

The January 2012 order found that defendant’s auditing of financial statements of brokerdealers that would be filed with the SEC constituted “‘appearing or practicing before the

Commission’ in violation of the injunction” and ordered defendant “to cease preparation of all

audit reports destined for filing with the Commission, including audit reports on financial

statements for broker-dealers so destined for filling with the Commission” (Dkt. Nos. 24, 39)

Over the next six years, defendant filed numerous additional motions to vacate the

injunction, all of which have been denied. Defendant’s multiple requests to reconsider the

denials of those motions have also been rejected by the undersigned judge. Defendant, still

proceeding pro se, brought the instant motions to partially vacate the injunction in February

2018 and March 2018, respectively. An order dated July 6 set a hearing on the motions. At the

Court’s request, the SEC provided a summary of the history of this litigation. This order

accordingly follows full briefing and oral argument (see, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 46, 62, 75, 81, 87, 93). 

Because the instant motions raise the same arguments, this order addresses both motions

together.

Defendant asks that he be allowed to perform accounting work in three areas: (1)

nonprofit organizations; (2) non-public broker-dealers; and (3) issuers. Defendant raises two

arguments in favor of this request. First, he argues that such relief would be equitable because

these activities were not the cause of the 1983 injunction. This argument fails to demonstrate,

however, any changed circumstances which have made defendant’s compliance with the

injunction “substantially more onerous, unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles,

detrimental to the public interest, or legally impermissible.” SEC v. Coldicutt, 258 F.3d 939,

942 (9th Cir. 2001). As with prior orders, the undersigned judge declines to issue an advisory

opinion as to whether the work defendant wishes to perform falls within the scope of the 1983

injunction. 

Second, defendant argues that the undersigned judge “has the authority and jurisdiction

to grant” his request in light of prior orders by our court of appeals and the court of appeals for

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 101 Filed 08/02/18 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the District of Columbia. As has already been explained in prior orders, the authority on which

defendant relies does not aid his case. In both decisions, defendant’s claims were rejected and

the 1983 injunction he now seeks to modify was left in place. See Amundsen v. United States

District Court, No. 13-71472, Dkt. No. 18 (9th Cir. 2013); Amundsen v. Securities and

Exchange Commission, No. 13-1252, Dkt. No. 1507327 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Although defendant

references a “letter” in which our court of appeals told defendant that “the injunction was too

broad to be enforced,” he fails to attach any such letter to his motion.

Defendant’s request to modify the injunction is accordingly DENIED. In addition to the

reasons explained above, defendant has submitted a “Wells letter” which was sent to him by the

SEC and which indicates that the SEC is currently investigating defendant for professional

misconduct and aiding and abetting violations of federal securities laws. In the letter, the SEC

alleges that in 2015 and 2016, defendant “served as an engagement quality reviewer or

concurring partner on at least fourteen audits of broker-dealers where the audit client’s financial

statements had been prepared by [defendant’s] nondependent child.” The Court agrees with the

SEC that the existence of this investigation counsels against granting defendant’s requested

relief. To the extent the instant motions ask for reconsideration of any prior orders, defendant

fails to identify any new basis that would warrant reconsideration, and his request for

reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 101 Filed 08/02/18 Page 3 of 3