Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01068/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-01068-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANVRIN HOLDINGS LIMITED, CROSSGAR

LIMITED, and RYBURN LIMITED,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. OLIVER HILSENRATH,

Defendant.

 /

DR. OLIVER HILSENRATH and HANA

HILSENRATH,

Counterclaimants,

v.

JANVRIN HOLDINGS LIMITED, CROSSGAR

LIMITED, and RYBURN LIMITED,

Counterdefendants.

 /

No. C 02-1068 CW

ORDER DENYING

COUNTERCLAIMANTS'

MOTION TO ALTER OR

AMEND THE JUDGMENT

On July 18, 2007, the Court entered an order adopting in part

and modifying in part Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman's Report

and Recommendation regarding Counterclaimants' motion for default

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 7
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

The Court entered an amended order on July 26, 2007

correcting a typographical error at page 2, line 27. 

2

judgment.1

 On July 23, 2007, Counterclaimants filed a motion to

alter the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

59(e). However, part of the motion relates to language in the

Order regarding the report and recommendation that does not impact

the final judgment. To the extent Counterclaimants seek to amend

language in the Order that does not impact the final judgment, the

Court deems the motion to be a motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9 and DENIES it. 

To the extent the motion seeks to amend the final judgment, the

Court DENIES it. 

BACKGROUND

The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation "except for

the amount of damages." July 18, 2007 Order at 2. The Court

found that "Oliver Hilsenrath fails to plead or otherwise provide

evidence of a causal connection between Counterdefendants' tortious

acts and the loss of his job and wealth." Id. Therefore, the

Court reduced the amount of general damages awarded to Oliver

Hilsenrath "representing the monetary value of the loss of his job

and the large portion of his wealth that he attributes to

Counterdefendants' acts" from $2.5 million to $50,000. Id. 

Further the Court found that "Hana Hilsenrath fails to plead or

otherwise provide evidence of a causal connection between 

Counterdefendants' tortious acts and her emotional distress." Id.

Therefore, the Court reduced the amount of damages for emotional

distress awarded to Hana Hilsenrath from $2.5 million to $50,000. 

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 7
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 3

Id. The Court found that both Oliver Hilsenrath's general damages

and Hana Hilsenrath's emotional distress damages "can also be

attributed to other difficulties, including Oliver Hilsenrath's

concurrent criminal prosecution and his guilty plea to securities

fraud and tax evasion." Id.

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

of Court to file the motion." A request for leave to file a motion 

for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

In the order on the report and recommendation, the Court noted

that the Hilsenraths had filed a "Clarification as to the Report

and Recommendation." The Court understood that document to express

an interest in bringing a future motion to join Equity Trust as a

Counterdefendant. The Court noted that it had already denied such 

a motion and informed the Hilsenraths that absent grounds

warranting reconsideration and leave of the Court pursuant to Civil

Local Rule 7-9, they may not renew any motion which has already

been denied. The Hilsenraths now object to the Court's order,

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 7
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

2In their "Objection 4", the Hilsenraths state, "The court has

included in its order unfair, prejudicial and uninformed statements

regarding the case USA v. Hilsenrath." Motion at 6. They state

that clarifications are included in the declaration appended to the

motion. However, the Court is not able to determine to which

statements the Hilsenraths object. Therefore, Counterclaimants

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied

with respect to the Court's reference to Oliver Hilsenrath's

criminal prosecution. To the extent the Court's comments regarding

the prosecution are related to the Court's decision to modify the

report and recommendation, they are discussed below. 

4

arguing that they were expressing their interest in seeking a

motion to substitute Equity Trust as a Counterdefendant pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. 

In its order regarding the report and recommendation, the

Court did not rule on any motion related to Equity Trust, nor did

it state that the Hilsenraths may not pursue any motion which they

have not yet made. Rather, the Court reiterated its earlier ruling

that the Hilsenraths may not join Equity Trust as a defendant and

stated that the Hilsenraths could not renew a motion that had

already been denied. Therefore, Counterclaimants motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration is denied with respect to the

Court's statements related to Equity Trust.2

II. Motion to Amend

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides that "any

motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10

days after entry of judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e)

motions are interpreted as motions for reconsideration and are

appropriate if the district court "(1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 7
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 5

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening

change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,

Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Rule

59(e) does not allow parties to revisit previously traveled legal

terrain. Demasse v. ITT Corp., 915 F. Supp. 1040, 1048 (D. Ariz.

1995) (noting a motion seeking reconsideration of a summary

judgment under Rule 59(e) "may not be used to relitigate old

matters or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have

been raised prior to entry of judgment"). 

Counterclaimants seek to amend the judgment to adopt Judge

Zimmerman's recommendation regarding damages in full. 

A. David Dahan Declaration

Counterclaimants first argue that the Court improperly found

that "Oliver Hilsenrath fails to plead or otherwise provide

evidence of a causal connection between Counterdefendants' tortious

acts and the loss of his job and wealth" and therefore improperly

reduced Oliver Hilsenrath's claim for general damages from $2.5

million to $50,000. July 28, 2007 Order at 2. Counterclaimants

argue that a declaration signed by David Dahan, who identifies

himself as a financial advisor who had a financial interest in

Janvrin, "proves unequivocally malicious intent and applicable

award of exemplary damages." Motion at 3. However, this argument

fails for two reasons.

First, contrary to Counterclaimants' assertion, the Court was

unable to locate the Dahan declaration in the materials presented

to Magistrate Judge Zimmerman and Counterclaimants provide no 

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 5 of 7
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 6

reason that the declaration, which is dated April 28, 2007, was not

presented with their declarations in support of their motion for

entry of default. Next, Magistrate Judge Zimmerman did not

recommend awarding any exemplary damages. See Report and

Recommendation at 6-7. 

B. Attribution of Damages to Other Difficulties

Counterclaimants next contest the Court's statement that the

general damages claimed by Oliver Hilsenrath and the emotional

distress damages claimed by Hana Hilsenrath "can also be attributed

to other difficulties, including Oliver Hilsenrath's concurrent

criminal prosecution and his guilty plea to securities fraud and

tax evasion." July 18, 2007 Order at 2. Counterclaimants argue

that the alleged tortious acts "occurred between the years 2000 and

2001, while the government prosecution started more than two years

later in 2003, and the plea occurred recently in 2007." Motion at

3. Therefore, Counterclaimants argue that the Court's reduction of

their general and emotional distress damages to $50,000 is improper

because "There can be no causal influence of later events on the

torts of 2001." Id. 

Counterclaimants misunderstand the Court's order. The Court

did not state that the criminal prosecution and guilty plea could

have caused the alleged torts. Rather, the Court stated that the

criminal prosecution and guilty plea were among the other factors

that could have caused the damages Counterclaimants claim based on

those torts. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Counterclaimants'

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 6 of 7
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

3Counterclaimants also state that they petition the Court sua

sponte to recuse itself from this case and any other proceedings

related to them "if it believes it cannot act impartially and

without prejudice with respect to Hana and Oliver Hilsenrath." 

Motion at 7. They state that they "are concerned that in her role

as delegate to the governments of the Palestinian Territories, [the

undersigned] might have adopted significant criticism of the

Israeli defense establishment of which Mr. Hilsenrath was part of

as a career executive." Id. at 8. A judge "shall disqualify

himself [or herself] in any proceeding in which his impartiality

might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The test for

disqualification is an objective one: "whether a reasonable person

with knowledge of all the facts would conclude that the judge's

impartiality might reasonably be questioned." United States v.

Nelson, 718 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir. 1983). Counterclaimants have

not demonstrated that the undersigned's impartiality could

reasonably questioned. 

7

motion to alter or amend the judgment (Docket No. 298).3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9/20/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-01068-CW Document 313 Filed 09/20/07 Page 7 of 7