Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711/USCOURTS-cand-3_83-cv-00711-2/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

DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

On November 15, 2010, an order denied defendant’s motion to vacate an injunction

entered in this matter in 1983. The injunction prevents defendant from “appearing or practicing

before the [Securities and Exchange] Commission in any way.” Defendant filed a notice of

appeal of the order denying his motion, and that appeal is pending.

On November 22, 2010, the office of the Clerk of Court appears to have received a

submission from defendant. It is dated signed on November 19. It appears and this order so

construes it to be a motion for reconsideration of the order denying defendant’s motion to vacate. 

The submission states: “Defendant petitioner (Amundsen) requests Court [sic] to reconsider

Order Denying Motion to Vacate Injunction . . .” (Dkt. No. 19). Somehow, the motion did not get

filed on the docket until February 2, 2011. (Though the docket backdates the filing to November

22, the motion was only received on that day, and has been in the building since that time, but

was not filed until today.)

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 20 Filed 02/02/11 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

Defendant was not granted leave to file his motion for reconsideration as required under

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). Moreover, his submission repeats arguments found in his original

motion to vacate the injunction and thus in other respects fails to warrant reconsideration under

the terms of Civil Local Rule 7-9. Hence, defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:83-cv-00711-WHA Document 20 Filed 02/02/11 Page 2 of 2