ORDER ON MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT JAMES E. PUTMAN

WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, District Judge.

This matter came on for a hearing on the Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) motion for entry of final judgment against Defendant James E. Putman. The Court scheduled the motion for a telephone hearing to take place on May 14, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. The Court scheduled the hearing to address whether a Rule 54(b) certification was needed before final judgment could be entered as to the SEC's claim against Mr. Putman. Rule 54(b) certification would seem appropriate if the Court is to enter final judgment since the SEC's claim is not the only one in the action. In other words, the Court's decision granting the SEC's motion for summary judgment against Mr. Putman does not resolve all of the claims as to all of the parties. Unfortunately, counsel for the SEC failed to appear at the scheduled telephone hearing. Counsel for the Receiver indicated that the Receiver had no objection to entry of final judgment as to Mr. Putman, but Mr. Putman indicated that he intended to seek reconsideration. Mr. Putman expressed some confusion as to the scope of the relief sought by the SEC and indicated he was intending to seek some relief from the order. Since the SEC did not appear, the Court took no action at that time.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that counsel for the SEC shall advise the Court within the next 10 days why he failed to appear for the scheduled telephone hearing and, further, whether or not the relief he is requesting is that the Court find no reason for delay and direct the Clerk to enter final judgment as to the SEC's claim against Mr. Putman pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.