UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

 Case No: 9:20-CV-81205

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et. 

al.

Defendants

 

DEFENDANT JOSEPH COLE BARLETA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

COMES NOW Defendant, Joseph Cole Barleta (“Cole”), by and through his undersigned 

counsel and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60, as well as this Court’s inherent 

authority, requests that this Court reconsider its Order denying clarification or modification to the 

previously entered preliminary injunction to allow access to the funds of Capital Source 2000, Inc. 

[D.E. 1580]. Plaintiff states the following in support:

1. On February 25, 2019, this Court entered an Order Cole’s Expedited Motion for 

Modification and Judicial Relief pertaining to funds that were frozen attributable to Capital 

Source 2000, Inc., an entity that is not a defendant of this lawsuit [D.E. 1580].

2. With all deference to the Court, and without attempting to invoke the fury of the Court, the 

purpose of this instant Motion for Reconsideration is to correct a clear error of fact and 

law. The purpose of this instant Motion is not to use up judicial resources needlessly, or 

for any unfair, prejudicial, or improper purpose. The "purpose of a motion for 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1581 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2023 Page 1 of 5
2 | Reconsideration Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq.

reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered 

evidence." Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F.Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D.Fla.1992). In 

particular, there are three major grounds which justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening 

change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct 

clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Offices Togolais Des Phosphates v. 

Mulberry Phosphates, Inc., 62 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1331 (M.D.Fla.1999); See also Sussman 

v. Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D.Fla.1994)(emphasis added).

3. The Court explained that the reason for denial was that Cole did not demonstrate a 

significant change in either the factual conditions or the law that would warrant lifting the 

asset freeze, citing to Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1033 (11th Cir. 2002). 

4. Sierra Club holds that to modify a consent decree, Cole would need to show a significant 

change either in factual conditions or in law, and second, that the proposed modification is 

suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. 

5. In this case, Cole provided evidence and proof that there certainly was a change in the 

factual condition. The biggest change, that this Court knows, is that the Receiver and the 

SEC, with this Court’s approval, not only returned Capital Source 2000, Inc so that it could 

continue to do business, but also returned over two million dollars in cash. These funds 

were not returned by some outside entity, but by the Receiver himself. These facts, clearly, 

were not present when the Court originally implemented its order against Cole on the 

preliminary injunction. Next, the modification that Cole seeks is solely as to Capital Source 

2000, Inc., which is not a party to this action, and has never been a party to this action. It 

would be crazy, for lack of a better term, and patently unfair to return a business, return the 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1581 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2023 Page 2 of 5
3 | Reconsideration Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq.

funds for that business, agree that the business can operate, and then summarily freeze the 

assets, making it liable to noteholders and vendors. 

6. As such, the exhibits, evidence, and this Court’s own action pertaining to Capital Source, 

2000, Inc. comply with the Sierra Club standards. 

7. Moreover, Because Capital Source 2000, Inc. is a non-party, an asset freeze that extends 

to it has different elements than it would as be applicable to Cole. "A federal court has the 

authority to freeze the assets of a party not accused of wrongdoing where that party: '(1) 

has received ill-gotten funds; and (2) does not have a legitimate claim to those funds." SEC

v. Wyly, 73 F. Supp. 3d 315, 321 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

8. In our case, we know one-hundred percent that the assets in question, specifically cash,

were not ill-gotten because they were returned to Cole and Bromley by this Court and with

the consent of both the SEC and the Receiver. Moreover, Capital Source 2000, Inc. has a

legitimate claim to the funds. See also SEC v. Cross Fin. Servs., 908 F. Supp. 718, 726

(C.D. Cal. 1995)( A court can obtain equitable relief from a non-party against whom no

wrongdoing is alleged if it is established that the non-party possesses illegally obtained

profits but has no legitimate claim to them. . .).

9. In fact, so well-known is this prevention of non-party asset freezes that the Eleventh

Circuit has held in FTC v. Vylah Tec Ltd. Liab. Co., 727 F. App'x 998, 1002 (11th Cir.

2018)

“that the district court did not make sufficient factual findings to support freezing

these assets. While the court stated in the TRO that Appellees had "sufficiently

shown that. . . Dennis . . . [has] engaged in and [is] likely to engage in acts and

practices that violate [the FTCA and FDUTPA]," the court did not find that Dennis

gained anything from the allegedly unlawful practices. Similarly, the district court 

made no findings as to Olga's involvement, if any, in the alleged scheme, nor did it 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1581 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2023 Page 3 of 5
4 | Reconsideration Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq.

explain why assets she holds jointly with Robert are subject to a freeze regardless 

of whether she was involved.”

10. The same is true for our case here. This Court has denied Cole’s Motion and improperly 

shifted the burden of proof. It is the SEC and the Receiver who must prove that the funds 

to be frozen were ill-gotten and used for an improper purpose. It is doubtful that the 

Receiver or the SEC can prove any of these elements because they are the ones who 

originally agreed to the released the funds, as well as the entity Capital Source 2000, Inc.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to reconsider its Order denying modification or 

clarification of the Preliminary Injunction and allow an evidentiary hearing so that the parties 

can properly present evidence before this tribunal. 

DATED: June 4, 2023

Respectfully submitted, 

By: Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson, LLC.

Counsel for Defendant, Joseph Cole Barleta

7000 W Palmetto Park Road

Suite 240 

Boca Raton, FL 33433

Telephone: (954) 895-5566

Primary Email: arlaw@raikhelsonlaw.com

/s/ Andre G. Raikhelson

Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq.

Bar Number: 123657

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1581 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2023 Page 4 of 5
5 | Reconsideration Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to all counsel of 

record through the CM/ECF system. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1581 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/04/2023 Page 5 of 5