Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03252/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03252-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OLIVER HILSENRATH,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-03252 WHA

ORDER RE DEFENDANT

HILSENRATH’S

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant Oliver Hilsenrath filed a counterclaim against the SEC on April 21, 2008,

three days before the SEC’s deadline for filing a motion for summary judgment. The Court

ordered defendant to show cause why the counterclaim should not be deemed untimely.

Defendant claims that there was no other possible earlier time to file the counterclaim

because the case had been stayed since May 2006. The stay was lifted on March 27, 2008. He

then needed three weeks from the March 27, 2008, to prepare the counterclaim and supporting

exhibits. Defendant further argues that he gave timely notice of his intention to file a

counterclaim upon the lifting of the stay (in August 2007 and March 2008). He also states that

there is no impact on the Court’s current case schedule and his counterclaim is an integral part

of his defense.

This order disagrees. The counterclaim is deemed untimely. Defendant filed his answer

on July 14, 2005 — with the aid of counsel. (Counsel was not allowed to withdraw until

September 2006.) No counterclaims or cross claims were included under FRCP 13 or 14. The

Case 3:03-cv-03252-WHA Document 179 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

second amended case management order stated that “[l]eave to add any new parties or pleading

amendments must be sought by July 28, 2005” (Dkt. No. 69). Defendant never sought leave to

amend by that date. Defendant’s counterclaim is therefore STRICKEN, and plaintiff need not

respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03252-WHA Document 179 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 2