Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dalmy

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: January 9, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00745
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 19-cv-00745-RM-NYW

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANE D. DALMY, and MICHAEL J. WOODFORD,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ON MOTION TO AMEND ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Final Judgment as to Defendant Dalmy (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 50), filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) allows a district court to alter or amend a judgment. “‘Grounds warranting a [Rule 59(e)] motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195, 1212 (10th Cir. 2012) (brackets in original) (quoting Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). “A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law, [but it] is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. In this case, Plaintiff requests the final judgment as to Defendant Dalmy be amended to accurately reflect the relief requested in the Amended Complaint, namely (1) that a penny stock bar be entered against Defendant Dalmy; and (2) that no civil penalty be entered against Defendant Dalmy. Pursuant to Rule 55(c) “[a] default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Accordingly, the Court finds the need to correct clear error and prevent manifest injustice as to Defendant Dalmy because the relief granted in the Order and Final Judgment (ECF Nos. 43, 48) differs in kind and exceeds the amount requested as to her and fails to include relief which was requested. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) That the Motion (ECF No. 50) is hereby GRANTED; (2) That the Order and Final Judgment (ECF No. 43) is hereby amended as reflected in the Amended Order and Default Judgment as to Defendant Dalmy issued concurrently with this Order to Amend; and (3) That the Clerk shall enter an Amended Judgment as to Defendant Dalmy. DATED this 9th day of January, 2020. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge