Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. EMPIRES CONSULTING CORP., et al JOSHUA DAVID NICHOLAS

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-17 Docket: 1:22-cv-21997-CMA The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant-Appellant Joshua David Nicholas’s motions to set aside a default judgment and for reconsideration. The court first dismissed the portion of the appeal challenging the February 4 order entering the default judgment, ruling that the appeal was untimely because no tolling motions were filed regarding that specific order. Consequently, the court limited its review to the June orders denying Nicholas’s Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) motions. The court applied a narrow scope of review for denials of Rule 60(b) motions, noting such appeals address only the propriety of the denial rather than the underlying judgment. While acknowledging that pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard, the court held that Nicholas failed to properly brief his arguments by not expressly challenging the specific grounds in the June orders or devoting discrete sections to Rules 60(b) and 59(e). The court determined that Nicholas abandoned any challenge to these denials because he raised no specific arguments under the relevant rules. Even assuming the challenges were not abandoned, the court found no error: Nicholas failed to demonstrate excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1), failed to show a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard under Rule 60(b)(4), and failed to establish exceptional circumstances for the trading ban under Rule 60(b)(6). Additionally, the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion was not an abuse of discretion as it relied on arguments previously rejected. As a result, the district court’s orders are affirmed. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.