Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre

USDC SDNY MO ENDORSED) [occoves: ee ELECTRONICALLY FILED "=~ NAT □□ | pote ECRIVEI DATE FILED: 47972025 SA) pomeecnenay | THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | ih, APR G7 265 □ DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | - | ua buss) □□□ COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING | Pye eT □□□ □□ | COMMISSION, | Rihd i ree Plaintiff, Lacan nie SETTER nen □□□□□□ New York, N.Y. Vv.

Case No, 22-cv-3822 EDDY ALEXANDRE, and EMINIFA, Inc., Respondenis.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST THE RECEIVER Respondent, Eddy Alexandre, respectfully moves this Court for leave to file a counterclaim and cross-claim against the David Castleman, in this ongoing civil proceeding. This motion arises out of a series of retaliatory actions taken k Receiver against Respondent and his family, and It is grounded in claims of defamation, abuse of process, and violation duty. |. BACKGROUND Since the initiation of this matter, Respondent has faced considerable hostility from the government, particularly the Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and its appointed Receiver. Subsequently, the Receiver has filed a lawst Respondent's spouse, attempting to tarnish her reputation, and destroy her and character to generate billable hours her not being charged with any wrongdoing related fo this case. The claims made against her and Respondent are unfounded and appear to be an attempt at character assassination motivated by the Receiver's personal vendetta.

The Receiver's actions amount to harassment and an abuse of the legal system, utilizing funds from the very investors tt is appointed to protect to pursue frivolous and vexatious litigation. Such conduct not only violates essential principles of responsibility as outline in Gordone v. Marrone, 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 1999), but also constitutes an affront to Judi as it forces Respondent and his spouse to defend themselves against muitiple lawsuits in different venues. i. ARGUMENT _ Legal Standard for Leave to File Counterclaim Under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may plead a counterclaim against an opposing party. Lez be granted "when justice so requires" Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(a). Furthermore, courts generally favor the resolution of aims in a single forum to prevent duplicative litigation and promote judicial efficiency.

Claims Against the Receiver 4, Defamation Receiver's unfounded allegations against Respondent's spouse inflict reputational harm, establishing a prima facie cas as outlined in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

2. Abuse of Process Receiver's actions represent an abuse of process, as they have no legitimate purpose but serve to harass and vex espondent. This is consistent with precedent set in Friedman v. De Ruyter, 119 A.D.3d 624 (2d Dep't. 2014).

3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty Receiver's pursuit of frivolous litigation represents a clear dereliction of his duty to act in the best interests of the EminiF ag: state. The Receiver's fiduciary duty denotes not only the duty to protect estate assets but also to avoid engaging in self- behavior that undermines those assets (see Liquidation of National Union Fire In. Co. of Pittsburg, PA, 70 N.¥.2d 5 Sanctions Under Rule 17 Court has the authority to impose sanctions for frivolous filings and abuse of the litigation pracess under Fed.R.Civ.P. F 4. The Receiver's persistence in bringing baseless lawsuits suggests an intent to unduly burden Respondent and his fami litigation costs and stress, meriting judicial scrutiny and possible sanctions.

Judicial Economy proposed Counterclaim and cross-claim seek to address all pertinent issues in one unified action, since the actions □□□ are what destroyed the values of EminiFX portfolios to make a statement true or untrue to justify the falsehoods lleged by the Government, addressing these claims is paramount to resolve this case ultimately promoting efficiency and judicial resources, a principle underscored in Morris v. Tully, 36 A.D.3d 26, 26-31 (2d Dep't 2006).

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant leave to file a counterclain nd cross-claim against the Receiver for defamation, abuse of process, and breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Responc appropriate sanction against the Receiver under Rule 11 for his vexatious litigation practices.

Respectfully submitted, on March 30, 2025 {Si Eddy Alexandre Eddy Alexandre, pro se Reg. No. 00712-510 Former CEO & Founder of EminiFX FCC Allenwocd Low P.O. Box 1000 White Deer, PA 17887 nclosure: First page on this docket CFTC-Dkt. No. 465-1 "receiver's action in NYS Supreme Court’ a Application DENIED. “Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) provides that leave to amend should be given freely when justice so requires, where, as here, there is no merit in the proposed amendments, leave to amend should be denied.” Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker, 915 F.2d 805, 810 (2d Cir. 1990). The fact that Mr. Castleman has filed a separate lawsuit in his capacity as the Court-appointed Receiver in this case does not give rise to any inference of wrongdoing; in fact, the Statutory Restraining Order authorizes him to do precisely that. Dkt. 9 at § Accordingly, Mr. Alexandre's proposed claims against the Receiver are meritless. If Mr. Alexandre is correct that the allegations against his spouse are unfounded, then she will quickly be able to dispose of the Receiver's case against her without this Court's intervention.

Additionally, even if Mr. Alexandre's proposed claims were not frivolous, the Court would still deny his request for leave to amend as untimely. Mr. Alexandre has already consented to a summary judgment briefing schedule without taking any discovery, see Dkt. 356, the Court has approved the Receiver's plan of distribution, see Dkt.

431, and the CFTC's motion for summary judgment is fully briefed, see Dkt. 436. Adding new claims at this “late stage” of litigation would only “hinder the speedy resolution” of this case. Taylor v. Trigeno, No. 16- CV-01143, 2022 WL 22664213, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2022) (denying leave to amend).

Given the lack of legal authority for Mr. Alexandre's motion, the Court hereby certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any interlocutory appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. Therefore, permission to proceed in forma pauperis on interlocutory appeal of this order is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this order to Mr. Alexandre and to note mailing on the docket.

SO ORDERED.

4/9/2025 HON. VALERIE CAPRONI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE