govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_15-cv-00675-96

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 Plaintiff, 
 v. 
IFTIKAR AHMED, 
 Defendant, and  
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED 
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI 
AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY 
TRUST; DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL 
HOLDINGS, LLC; I.I. 1, a minor child, by and 
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI 
AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a minor child, by and 
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI 
AHMED, his parents; and I.I. 3, a minor child, by 
and through his next friends IFTIKAR and 
SHALINI AHMED, his parents,    
 Relief Defendants. 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA) 
 
June 16, 2023 
 
ORDER DENYING RELIEF DEFENDANT SHALINI AHMED’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION 
Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed moves [Doc. # 250 9] for reconsideration of this 
Court’s previous Order denying Ms. Ahmed’s Motion for Funds to R etain Counsel for the 
Order to Show Cause Briefing and Hearing [Doc. # 2505] (“Order”). 
The Court assumes Ms. Ahmed’s familiarity with the standard governing motions for 
reconsideration. (See, e.g. , Order D enying Relief Defendants’ Emergency Mot. for 
Reconsideration [Doc. # 2288].) Ms. Ahmed seeks to relitigate her claims that no one will 
lend her  money or pay her for attorney’s fees, despite her managing to acquire financial 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2512     Filed 06/16/23     Page 1 of 3
support for private school tuition and trips to India. These facts still call into serious question 
Ms. Ahmed’s alleged financial indigency, even if those expenses are said to  have been paid 
by the generosity of other people. Now, only after this Court’s ruling, Ms. Ahmed attempts to 
substantiate her claim that she cannot find funds for paying counsel by means of an affidavit, 
which she attaches as Exhibit 1 to her Motion. [Doc. # 2509- 1]. The affidavit states that she 
borrowed funds to pay for her children’s private schooling and has had others largely pay 
for travel to India, but that “[a]t no point in time did anyone agree to allow [her] to borrow 
to pay legal fees and [she] ha[s] been denied any borrowing for such requests.” (Id. at 1.) Ms. 
Ahmed also notes her difficulty finding employment given the public nature of the case and 
her health conditions, and states she has no other source of income for pay ing for counsel. 
(Id. at 2.) 
Ms. Ahmed fails to show reconsideration is warranted . Ms. Ahmed objects to the 
Order characterizing Ms. Ahmed as having conceded to paying for family trips to India, and 
instead says other people paid for the tickets on the children’s behalf, with the exception of 
one trip which she paid for by herself and then got reimbursement for. (Mot. at 3.) She also 
notes that it was Mr. Ahmed, not Ms. Ahmed, who previously sought the release of funds for 
travel to India. (See Order Denying Mr. Ahmed’s Motion for Funds [Doc. # 478].) Regardless, 
in light of the significant financial sums Ms. Ahmed has managed to borrow or have paid on 
her family’s behalf, and the lack of corroboration of her financial need in her original motion, 
reconsideration based on these objections is not warranted. Even if the Court were to accept 
the affidavit at face value, Ms. Ahmed’s failure to provide an affidavit until after the Court has 
already ruled means that her reconsideration motion is improperly seeking a “second bite at 
the apple. ” See Rafter v. Liddle, 288 F. App'x 768, 769 (2d Cir. 2008)  (affirming denial of 
reconsideration where the p laintiff attached an affidavit to her reconsideration motion 
containing certain facts not in the original record, holding that such facts not originally in the 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2512     Filed 06/16/23     Page 2 of 3
record are not considered facts a court “overlooked” which would merit reconsideration) .1 
Moreover, the affidavit lacks any details as to who is paying for the private school tuition and 
international travel, whom Ms. Ahmed asked for legal fees, how much Ms. Ahmed has asked 
for, and when these requests occurred. 
I. Conclusion 
For the reasons set forth above, Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed’s Motion for 
Reconsideration is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 ___________________________/s/________________ 
 
 Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 16th day of June, 2023 
 
 
1 Ms. Ahmed also moves for clarification [Doc. # 2508] as to whether there will be multiple 
stages of the contempt proceedings.  The Court will determine the appropriateness of any 
potential further proceedings after the show cause hearing is held on July 7, 2023. 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2512     Filed 06/16/23     Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight