Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04049/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04049-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BROSNAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 08-4049 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

JOHN BOUZANE’S MOTION TO SET

ASIDE DEFAULT AND DISMISSING

CLAIMS AGAINST BOUZANE

WITHOUT PREJUDICE; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

PAUL WINDERS; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT

DENNIS REIFERT

On February 26, 2010, the Court held a hearing on defendant John Bouzane’s motion to set aside

the default and on plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against defendants Bouzane, Winders and

Reifert. Counsel for defendant Bouzane appeared. Plaintiff did not appear, nor did he notify the Court

of any reason for his absence.

On November 21, 2008, the Clerk entered default against these three defendants. Relevant to

the present motions, defendants Bouzane and Reifert were named as defendants in various state law

claims; all of the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice in an order filed February 2, 2009.

The Court GRANTS defendant Bouzane’s motion to set aside the default and reaffirms the dismissal

without prejudice of the claims against him. As the claims against Bouzane have been dismissed, the

litigation with respect to Bouzane is over. With regard to Reifert, although default has been entered,

judgment is not appropriate because the claims against Reifert were also dismissed. 

Defendant Winders was named as a defendant in the only remaining federal claim, alleging

illegal wiretapping under 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Default was entered against Winders, and plaintiff seeks

Case 3:08-cv-04049-SI Document 78 Filed 02/26/10 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

judgment against him on that basis. The Court will enter judgment. However, the undisputed evidence

in the record – Winders’ deposition testimony – shows that the recorded phone calls between plaintiff

and Winders were not intended for any criminal, tortious or injurious purpose, but rather were made to

preserve testimony and evidence. See Docket No. 69 at 5:11-7:23. Thus, the record strongly suggests

that Winders did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2511. There is no evidence that plaintiff suffered any actual

damages as a result of Winders’ actions, and the Court exercises its discretion and does not award any

statutory damages. See Reynolds v. Spears, 93 F.3d 428, 434 (8th Cir. 1996). Judgment will therefore

be for zero dollars.

With the resolution of the pending motions, this case has come to an end. The Clerk shall close

the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04049-SI Document 78 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 2