N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B R ADLEY STEPHEN C OHEN; C OHEN ASSET M ANAGEM ENT, INC ., a C a l ifornia C orporation, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. R OSS B . HANSEN; STEVEN EAR L FIR E B AUGH,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 16-15943

DC No. C V 12-1401 JC M

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , R AW LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt R oss Ha

nse n wa s found lia

ble for de fam ation pe r se
and fa lse light inva sion of priva c y a fte r he c re at e d a

we bsite c om

pa ring B ra dle y C ohe n a nd C ohe n Asse t M ana g e m e nt (“ C AM ” ) to B e rnie M a doff a nd his Ponz i 

# FIL ED JAN 11 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.sc he m e . C o he n an d C AM sought only pre sum e d da

m a ge s at tria l, a

nd a jury
awarde d a

m ultim i l lion-dolla

r judgm e nt. Ha

nse n a ppe a ls from

the judgm e nt a

nd the d istric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his m otion for a ne wtria l. He argue s tha

t c e rta in
e vide nc e introduc e d at tria l viola te d a m a gistra

te judge ’ s orde r pre c luding e vide nc e of “ q ua ntifia ble e c onom ic ha

rm .” 1 He a lso a

rgue s tha t Ne va da la w doe s not a llow

“ loss of busine ss” to se rve a s a ba sis for pre s um e d da

m a ge s. W e a ffirm
. 2 1. “ [A] n a

ward of pre sum e d ge ne ra l da m a ge s m ust still be supporte d by
c om pe te nt e vide nc e but not ne c e ssa rily of the kind tha

t a s signs a

n a c t ua l dolla r
va lue to the injury .” Bongiov i v . Sullivan , 138 P.3d 433, 448 (Nev. 2006) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tions omitte d). Furthe rm ore , the m a g istra te judge ’ s orde r only prohibite d

the introduc tion of e v ide n c e of quantifiable e c onom ic ha

rm ; it did not prohibit evide nc e of any e c onom ic ha

rm whatsoe ve r. At the be ginning of the

tria l, the distric t

c o urt instruc te d Ha

nse n’ s tria l
c ounse l to obje c t

if e vide nc e tha

t viola te d the orde r wa s introduc e d so tha t the
c ourt c ould rule on its a dm issibility at tha t tim e . Ha

nse n’ s c ounse l a g re e d to do so,

1 The orde r wa s issue d a s a disc ove ry

sa nc tion a nd a ffirm e d by

the distric t judge
.

2 Afte r this a

p pe a l wa s file d, Fire ba

ugh file d a

volunta ry pe tition for ba nkruptc y unde r C ha

pte r 13, in theUnite d State s B ankruptc y C ourt for the Distric t of Ne va d a , No. 16-51352. There fore , pursua nt to thea utom atic sta

y , 11 U.S.C . § 362(a ), this disposition doe s not a ddre ss or de c i de the a ppe a l a s to De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Fire ba ugh. 2but ne ve r obje c te d on the ground tha t the pre c lusion orde r ha d be e n viola te d. C ohe n te s tifie d tha

t: (1) C AM lost “ a

$21 m illion dolla

r de a l,” a lle ge dly

be c a use of the we bsite ; (2) his insura nc e provide r did not wa

nt to re ne w his polic y

be c a use of the we bsite , but C ohe n did not m e ntion a spe c ific dolla r figure and the provide r
e ve ntua lly

did insure him ; (3) one c lie nt wa s inve sting a pproxim ate ly

$130 m illion with C AM at the tim e the we bsite wa s online ; a n d (4) he wa s so inte nt on m aking the w e bsite le ss prom ine nt in inte rne t se arc h re sults tha t he spe nt $100,000 to $200,000 on se arc h e ngine optim iz ation. C o he n a nd C AM ’ s e vide nc e of e c onom ic ha rm wa s the ty

p e of c om p e te nt e vide nc e tha

t se rve d a s a ba sis for C ohe n

and C AM ’ s pre sum e d ge ne ra l da m a ge s. The distric t c ourt did not err by a llowing its
a dm ission. 2. Unde r Ne va da

la w, e vide nc e of “ loss of busine ss” c an se rve a s the ba sis for pre sum e d da

m a ge s in de fam at ion pe r sec a se s. “ Ge ne ra l da m a g e s are pre s um e d upon proof of the de fam at ion a lone . . . ‘ b e c a u se of the im

p ossibility

of
a ffixing a n e xa c t m one ta

ry am ount for pre se n t a

nd future injury

to the pla intiff’ s
re puta tion, wounde d fe e lings a

nd hum ilia

tion, loss of busine

ss , and a ny
c onse q ue ntia l phy sic a l illne ss or pa in.’ ” Bongiov i , 138 P.3d a t 448 (e m pha sis
a dde d) (quoting K

-Mart C orp. v . W ashington , 866 P.2d 274, 284 (Nev. 1993)). The distric t c o urt instruc te d

the jury tha t loss of busine ss c ould se rve a s the ba sis for
3pre s um e d da m a g e s. Ha

nse n d i d not obje c t to thejury instruc t ions or
a c c om pa ny ing spe c ia l inte rrogatorie s; in fa c t, he stipula te d to propose d jury instruc tions tha

t inc lude d “ loss of busine ss” a s a ba sis for pre sum e d da

m a ge s. The la ngua ge of the jury

instruc tions wa s c orre c t unde r Ne va da la w, a nd thus did not
m isle a d or c onfuse the jury . The distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr by inc l uding suc h la ngua ge in the unobje c te d -to jury instruc tions or thespe c ia l inte rrogatorie s.

• ! • The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D.

4