Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph S. Amundsen
Defendant
Securities And Exchange Commission
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pro Se defendant Joseph Amundsen has filed another motion to vacate the permanent

injunction from his 1983 case. The background of this action is found in prior orders (see, e.g.,

Dkt. No. 39). In brief, this action was reassigned from Judge Robert Aguilar to the undersigned

judge in 2010. That came after defendant, a then-certified public accountant, had voluntarily

signed a consent “Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction” with the SEC, due to defendant’s

deficient audit report on a financial statement for Olympic Oil and Gas Company. As a result,

the 1983 consent judgment permanently enjoined defendant from “appearing or practicing

before the Commission in any way,” among other things (Dkt. No. 3 at 3). 

On July 27, 2015, the undersigned judge denied defendant’s latest petition to vacate the

injunction (Dkt. No. 75). Defendant now moves for reconsideration of that order and seeks

relief from the injunction, but fails to identify any new basis or facts that would warrant

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 77 Filed 10/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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

reconsideration. Instead, he again argues that the injunction is unfair and again mentions the

same Cornell Law Review article from 1980. 

For the same reasons laid out in the July 27 order, defendant’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 77 Filed 10/19/15 Page 2 of 2