The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk 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.
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 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 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.
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 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 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 ...