1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 11 No. C 83-00711 WHA Plaintiff, 12

v.

13 ORDER DENYING PETITION TO JOSEPH S. AMUNDSEN, VACATE INJUNCTION 14 Defendant. 15

16 17 In 1983, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against defendant 18 Joseph Amundsen, then a certified public accountant, alleging that defendant misrepresented 19 material facts in audit reports he had prepared in connection with securities of Olympic Oil and 20 Gas, Inc. The complaint further alleged that defendant had made false statements under oath to 21 the SEC staff investigating him. Defendant, proceeding pro se, voluntarily signed a consent 22 “Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction.” The 1983 consent judgment permanently enjoined 23 defendant from “appearing or practicing before the Commission in any way” (Dkt. Nos. 1–3). 24 This matter was assigned to the undersigned in 2010. Defendant has, since then, moved 25 to vacate the agreed-to injunction on a regular basis, creating the following record:

26 ▪ Dkt. No. 14: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE INJUNCTION. 27 ▪ 1 ▪ Dkt. No. 46: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE INJUNCTION. 2 ▪ Dkt. No. 50: ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY 3 OF INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL.

4 ▪ Dkt. No. 62: ORDER DENYING PETITION TO VACATE INJUNCTION. 5 ▪ Dkt. No. 69: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 6 RECONSIDERATION.

7 ▪ Dkt. No. 71: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 8 ▪ Dkt. No. 73: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 RECONSIDERATION.

10 ▪ Dkt. No. 75: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 11 ▪ Dkt. No. 77: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 RECONSIDERATION.

13 ▪ Dkt. No. 81: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 14 ▪ Dkt. No. 83: ORDER DENYING PETITION TO 15 DISSOLVE PERMANENT INJUNCTION.

16 ▪ Dkt. No. 85: ORDER DENYING PETITION TO VACATE PERMANENT INJUNCTION. 17 ▪ Dkt. No. 87: ORDER DENYING PETITION TO 18 RECONSIDER.

19 ▪ Dkt. No. 89: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. 20 ▪ Dkt. No. 101: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 21 PARTIALLY VACATE INJUNCTION AND FOR RECONSIDERATION. 22 ▪ Dkt. No. 105: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 23 RECONSIDERATION.

24 ▪ Dkt. No. 110: ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL. 25 ▪ Dkt. No. 139: ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT IN 26 CIVIL CONTEMPT . . . [AND] DENYING 119 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING 125 27 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING 1 » Dkt. No. 144: ORDER DENYING 141 MOTION FOR 5 RECONSIDERATION. Dkt. No. 147: ORDER DENYING 146 MOTION FOR 3 RECONSIDERATION. 4 Dkt. No. 158: ORDER DENYING 157 MOTION TO 5 VACATE. = Dkt. No. 164: ORDER [DENYING] 161 PETITION TO 6 VACATE. 7 * Dkt. No. 168: ORDER [DENYING] 165 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Dkt. No. 171: ORDER DENYING 169 PETITION TO 9 PARTIALLY VACATE. 10 Defendant has moved to vacate the injunction yet again (Dkt. No. 176), and the 11 Commission has opposed (Dkt. No. 177). “A party seeking modification of a consent decree a 12 may meet its initial burden by showing either a significant change either in factual conditions 13 or in law.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail,

(1992). As before, all 14 stated grounds fail to support defendant’s position. The motion is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. it

Z 18 Dated: January 23, 2025. 19

21 a= ALSUP 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28