Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. TMTE Inc

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: March 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-02910
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

COMMODITY FUTURES § TRADING COMMISSION, ET AL., § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-2910-X § TMTE, INC., ET AL., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is non-party Daniel B. Spitzer’s motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 485]. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the motion. Spitzer claims the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. But this case involves allegations by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) of violations of the Commodities Exchange Act (“CEA”) and CFTC Regulations,1 and the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over civil actions brought by federal agencies such as the CFTC, as well as under federal laws such as the CEA.2 And states may sue in federal court if they allege violations of the CEA or CFTC Regulations,3 which is exactly what’s happening here.4

1 See Doc. 238 at 30–31 (explaining that the Plaintiffs allege violations of Section 6(c) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. § 9(1)) and CFTC Regulation 180.1). Both the CEA and the CFTC Regulations expressly allow states to sue in federal district court to redress violations. 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2(1). 2 28 U.S.C. § 1345, 1331. 3 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2(1). 4 Doc. 238 at 30–31 (explaining that the Plaintiff States allege violations of Section 6(c) of the CEA (7 U.S.C. § 9(1)) and CFTC Regulation 180.1); 7 U.S.C. § 13a-2(1). Spitzer argues that an exception blocks jurisdiction because “actual delivery” of the relevant sales occurred “within 28 days.”5 Regardless of when actual delivery occurred, the statute Spitzer invokes “speaks in terms of... the jurisdiction of the CFTC” and that agency’s “power to bring its claims, not of the federal courts’ jurisdiction to hear the case.” That exception does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction here.7 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Spitzer’s motion to dismiss. IT ISSO ORDERED this 24th day of March, 2023.

BRANTL A STARR UNITEDASTATES DISTRICT JUDGE

57U.S.C. § 2(¢)(2)(D) Gp) dID (aa). 8 Commodity Futures Trading Com’n v. White Pine Tr. Corp., 574 F.3d 1219, 1222 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 7 Regardless, the CEA also prohibits “any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance,” which squarely covers the allegations here. 7 U.S.C. § 9(1); see Doc. 238 at 35.