Filed: Jul. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge. On May 16, 2014, the court granted plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) motion for summary judgment against defendants John B. Wilson and JBW Capital LLC for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. 6m(1), 6b(a)(2)(i)-(iii), 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 1 and 6o(1)(A)-(B). The court granted the CFTC's request for injunctive relief, as well as its request for civil penal
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge. On May 16, 2014, the court granted plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) motion for summary judgment against defendants John B. Wilson and JBW Capital LLC for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. 6m(1), 6b(a)(2)(i)-(iii), 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C), 1 and 6o(1)(A)-(B). The court granted the CFTC's request for injunctive relief, as well as its request for civil penalt..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge.
On May 16, 2014, the court granted plaintiff Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) motion for summary judgment against defendants John B. Wilson and JBW Capital LLC for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6m(1), 6b(a)(2)(i)-(iii), 6b(a)(1)(A)-(C),1 and 6o(1)(A)-(B). The court granted the CFTC's request for injunctive relief, as well as its request for civil penalties pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 13a-1(d)(1), and 17 C.F.R. § 143.8. The court denied the CFTC's request for the additional remedy of restitution. The court requested a proposed order from the CFTC, directing the calculation of civil penalties on a statutory per-violation basis.
On May 27, 2014, the CFTC filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the judgment "with respect to restitution." See Dkt. #68. Relying on the court's reference to FTC v. Verity Int'l, Ltd., 443 F.3d 48, 67 (2d Cir. 2006), the CFTC alleges that the court defied "First Circuit precedent" in declining to order restitution.
A motion for reconsideration of an order to grant summary judgment is treated as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and is appropriate only "in a limited number of circumstances." United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009). "Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence." F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). The manifest error exception "requires a definite and firm conviction that a prior ruling on a material matter is unreasonable or obviously wrong," Ellis v. United States, 313 F.3d 636, 648 (1st Cir. 2002), and "to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion based on `manifest error of law,' the moving party must demonstrate that errors were made which were so egregious that an appellate court could not affirm the district court's judgment." See Kelly v. City of Fort Thomas, Kentucky, 610 F.Supp.2d 759, 781 (E.D. Ky. 2009) (collecting cases).2
The CFTC has made no such showing. Rather, the CFTC iterates the arguments for restitution that were made in its summary judgment pleadings and cites First Circuit precedent essentially affirming the discretion of a district court to fashion a remedy tailored to the facts of a given case.3 The additional cases cited by the CFTC neither compel an order of restitution as a matter of law, nor are the facts of those retail advertising cases analogous to those in this case. While the court was not persuaded by the CFTC's argument that restitution should be awarded, "[t]hat [a party] has a difference of opinion with the Court in this matter is not grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)." Trabal Hernandez v. Sealand Servs. Inc., 230 F.Supp.2d 258, 260 (D. P.R. 2002). Consequently, the motion to reconsider is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
