Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711-20/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 PETITION

TO DISSOLVE PERMANENT

INJUNCTION

Pro se defendant Joseph Amundsen has filed a motion entitled “Petition to Dissolve

Permanent Injunction.” 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 May 16, 2017,

the undersigned judge denied defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of a prior

petition to vacate the injunction (Dkt. No. 81). 

In this most recent letter, it does not appear that Amundsen seeks dissolution of his 

injunction from appearing or practicing before the SEC, but instead asks the Court for

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 83 Filed 06/22/17 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

permission to “open[] and review[] . . . evidence and testimony in a related case” insofar as it

pertains to his case. In the alternative, Amundsen asks the Court or the SEC to provide him

guidance about the parameters of the permanent injunction entered against him in this action. 

It is not clear what Amundsen seeks from this Court with respect to his request to open

and review evidence and testimony. Amundsen refers the Court to an attached order, Joseph S.

Amundsen v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San

Francisco, No. 13-71472, in which the appellate commissioner declined to reinstate

Amundsen’s petition No. 13-71472, and took no action regarding Amundsen’s request to “use a

Ninth Circuit decision on 13-71472 to petition the District Court for injunctive relief.” The

Court declines to reopen and review evidence in Amundsen’s action, which has been fully

litigated, and is closed. To the extent Amundsen’s letter can be read as a request that the Court

vacate his injunction, his request is DENIED. 

As for Amundsen’s request for “guidance,” he is, of course, free to review the docket in

this case, which addresses controversies that have arisen with regard to the bounds of the

consent decree Amundsen entered into with the SEC (e.g. Dkt. Nos. 3, 37, 39). This Court will

not, however, issue any kind of advisory opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 83 Filed 06/22/17 Page 2 of 2