US Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. American Bullion Exchange Abex Corp et al
Filing
82
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: DENYING 70 Motion for Reconsideration re Order on Motion to Strike, 68 . (See document for details.) (rla)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 10-1876 DOC (RNBx)
Date: September 26, 2011
Title: U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. AMERICAN BULLION
EXCHANGE ABEX, CORP., AMERICAN BULLION EXCHANGE, LLC, and RYAN A.
NASSBRIDGES, Defendants, and AMERICAN PREFERRED COMMODITIES APC CORP., R.E.
LLOYD COMMODITIES GROUP HOLDING, LLC, and BITA J. NASSBRIDGES, Relief
Defendants
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk
Not Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT
NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT RYAN A. NASSBRIDGES’
AND RELIEF DEFENDANT BITA J. NASSBRIDGES’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Defendant Ryan Nassbridges’ (“R. Nassbridges”) and Relief
Defendant Bita Nassbridges’ (“B. Nassbridges”) (jointly, the “Nassbridges”) Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Docket Numbers 55, 56, 57,
60, and 61 in the above-captioned case (“Motion for Reconsideration”) (Docket 70). The Court finds
this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After
considering the moving and opposing papers, and for the reasons described below, the Court hereby
DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
I.
Background
The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Plaintiff”) alleges that R.
Nassbridges, American Bullion Exchange ABEX, Corp., and American Bullion Exchange, LLC
(collectively, “Defendants”) “fraudulently operated a commodity pool and defrauded at least 80
individuals of approximately $5.5 million.” Complaint, ¶ 2. Defendants allegedly “solicited funds
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 1 of 3
from individuals for the represented purpose of investing in gold bullion, palladium bullion, gold coins
and silver coins,” but instead used investors’ funds to trade commodity futures and options. Id.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants sustained overall net trading losses of approximately $2.2 million
without disclosing such losses to the investors. Id. at ¶ 3. Additionally, Defendants, through R.
Nassbridges, allegedly misappropriated investors’ funds by transferring investors’ funds into the
Nassbridges’ personal bank account. Id. at ¶ 5. Furthermore, to conceal the allegedly fraudulent
operations and misappropriation, R. Nassbridges allegedly provided false and misleading testimony to
Plaintiff. Id. at ¶ 7.
In light of the alleged wrongdoing, Plaintiff filed a Complaint with this Court on
December 2, 2008, alleging various violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission
Regulations, including (1) fraud by fraudulent solicitation, misappropriation and failure to disclose
trading and losses (both futures and options); (2) fraud as a commodity pool operator; (3) failure to
register as a commodity pool operator; (4) failure to provide pool disclosure documents; and (5) failure
to provide monthly account statements. (Docket 1).
On June 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Strike Docket Numbers 55, 56, 57, 60 and
61 (Docket 65) (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). Plaintiff alleged that Docket Numbers 55, 56 and 57 contravene
Local Rule 7.9, are untimely and should be stricken. Plaintiff’s Motion, ¶ A. Plaintiff also alleged that
Docket Numbers 60 and 61 were untimely because they were filed sixteen to twenty-one days after the
Court had struck the Demurrer they supported, such that they should be stricken. Plaintiff’s Motion, ¶
B. On July 15, 2011, the Nassbridges filed their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket 67)
(“Nassbridges’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion”).
On July 25, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion (Docket 68). The Nassbridges
subsequently filed this Motion for Reconsideration on August 1, 2011. The Motion for Reconsideration
declared that R. Nassbridges was counting on appearing before the Court to present his oral argument
in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion and to clarify certain facts. Motion for Reconsideration, ¶ 2.
Therefore, the Nassbridges seek reconsideration on the grounds that R. Nassbridges would like to
present oral argument in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. Id. at ¶ 3.
II.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) “provides for reconsideration only upon a showing
of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void
judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary circumstances’ which would
justify relief.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993) (quoting Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)).
These grounds are further limited by the Local Rules. Local Rule 7-18 provides that a
motion for reconsideration of a decision on any motion may be made only on the following grounds:
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 2 of 3
“(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at
the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after
the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to
the Court before such decision.” L.R. 7-18. Finally, the Local Rule states that “[n]o motion for
reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in
opposition to the original motion.” Id.
III.
Discussion
The Nassbridges have failed to establish grounds for reconsideration provided by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) or Local Rule 7-18 for reconsideration. The Nassbridges make no statement to show that
there has been a mistake, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, a void
judgment, a satisfied or discharged judgment, or extraordinary circumstances which would justify
relief. Nor do the facts set out in the Motion for Reconsideration indicate that any of these factors have
been met. Rather, the Nassbridges seek reconsideration because R. Nassbridges would like to present
oral argument in opposition to the Plaintiff’s Motion and to clarify certain facts. Motion for
Reconsideration, ¶ 2. Although the Motion for Reconsideration declared that R. Nassbridges would
like to clarify certain facts, the Motion for Reconsideration does not point to any specific material facts
that the Court failed to consider in reaching its decision on Plaintiff’s Motion. As such, the
Nassbridges have made no showing as to why the Court should reconsider its previous order.
IV.
Disposition
In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Nassbridges’ Motion for
Reconsideration.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.
MINUTES FORM 11 DOC
CIVIL - GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
Page 3 of 3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
