Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona


File Size: 26.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: February 7, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Arizona
Category: District Court of Arizona
Author: unknown
Word Count: 349 Words, 2,055 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/azd/34922/92.pdf

Download Order - District Court of Arizona ( 26.9 kB)


Preview Order - District Court of Arizona
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 The court has before it an Amended Amicus Curiae Brief of Limited Partners 18 (Investors) of Millennium Capital Hedge Fund, L.P. (doc.89), and a Memorandum of Points 19 and Authorities filed by Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission in Opposition to 20 Amici Curiae Brief of Limited Partners (Investors) (doc. 90). 21 We are uncertain of what the amicus curiae brief is. It is filed on behalf of persons 22 not parties to this case and long after judgment has been filed. As best we can tell, some of 23 the investors would like the disgorged funds returned to them rather than to the United States. 24 But the final judgment of disgorgement was entered on November 14, 2005. And the final 25 order approving Petition No. 4 was filed on November 23, 2005. This case has been pending 26 since September 24, 2003 and the proposed amici have never participated in it. All the 27 parties to this case have had notice of all the proceedings in this case, and the court never 28
Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJM Document 92 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

EXCHANGE) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MILLENNIUM CAPITAL HEDGE) ) FUND, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) SECURITIES AND COMMISSION,

No. CV-03-1862-PHX-FJM ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

received any response to the government's motion for entry of final judgment of disgorgement. An amicus brief usually is filed to assist the court in the resolution of legal issues. But in this case, all legal issues have been resolved. The amicus brief in this case is more in the nature of an invitation to vacate a judgment filed by non-parties in a post-judgment setting. All of this comes too late. Accordingly, to the extent that the amicus brief can be construed as a post-judgment motion seeking relief of some sort, IT IS ORDERED DENYING it (doc. 89). DATED this 7th day of February, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-01862-FJM Document 92 Filed 02/07/2006 Page 2 of 2