Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03312/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03312-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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 1

Brown and Bougeard filed a joint motion. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANA HILSENRATH and OLIVER

HILSENRATH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EQUITY TRUST (JERSEY) LIMITED,

CANDOVER INVESTMENTS PLC, INSINGER DE

BEAUFORT SA, JARDINE MATHESON

HOLDINGS LIMITED, GRANT BROWN, MELVYN

KALMAN, JOHN PERKINS and CAROLINE

BOUGEARD

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-3312 CW

ORDER RE:

DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS

TO DISMISS AND

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants Equity Trust (Jersey) Limited, Candover Investments

PLC, Insinger de Beaufort SA, Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited and

Grant Brown and Caroline Bougeard1

 move separately to dismiss the

complaint. Plaintiffs Hana and Oliver Hilsenrath oppose the

motions and move to supplement the complaint pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). However, Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a) provides that “[a] party may amend the party’s

pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive

pleading is served.” Defendants have not filed a responsive

Case 4:07-cv-03312-CW Document 58 Filed 09/13/07 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

pleading in this action. See Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231

F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir. 2000) (a motion to dismiss is not a

“pleading” within the meaning of Rule 15). Therefore, Plaintiffs

need not seek leave to file their FAC. Plaintiffs motion for leave

to supplement their complaint (Docket No. 35) is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Plaintiffs may file their FAC.

Defendants may have two additional weeks to file their reply

briefs in support of their motions to dismiss in order to respond

to the FAC if necessary. Defendants' reply briefs are now due on

September 27, 2007. Plaintiffs may file a surreply of no more than

five pages addressing only those arguments specifically related to

the FAC by October 11. The September 27, 2007 hearing date is

VACATED. The matter will be heard on November 1, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/13/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-03312-CW Document 58 Filed 09/13/07 Page 2 of 2