N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT INVESC O HIGH YIELD FUND; INVESC O V.I. HIGH YIELD FUND; M OR GAN STANLEY GLOB AL FIXED INC OM E OPPOR TUNITIES FUND; a nd M OR GAN STANLEY VAR IAB LE INSUR ANC E FUND, INC . C ORE PLUS FIXED INC OM E POR TFOLIO,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. HANS JEC KLIN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and SW ISS LEISUR E GR OUP AG; JPC HOLDING AG; GEORGE HAEB ERLING; JOHN TIPTON; C HR ISTIANE JEC KLIN,

De fe nda n ts. No. 21-15809 DC No. 2:05 c v -1364-R

FB
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 R ic ha rd F. B oulwa

re II, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

7, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A and GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s, a

nd VR ATIL, ** Distric t Judge
. Hans Je c klin a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s M ay 28, 2020, orde r granting Pla i ntiffs’ m otion to c om

p e l, the distric t c ourt’ s M arc h 31, 2021, c i vil c onte m pt orde r, and the a

rre st wa rrant e nte re d by

the distric t c ourt on April 1, 2021. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. S e e Hilao v . Est. of Marc o s , 103 F.3d 762, 764 (9th C ir. 1996). W e re vie w for an a b use of disc re tion. Se e Halle tt v . Morgan , 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th C ir. 2002) (rulings on m o tions to c om

pe l); Hilao , 103 F.3d a

t 764–65 (c onte m

pt unde r Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 37(b)(2)(A)); In reGrand J ury Proc
. , 801 F.2d 1164, 1167 (9th C ir. 1986) (pe r c uriam ) (findings of c onte m pt unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1826). W e a ffirm
. 1 1. The distric t c ourt’ s finding of c onte m pt did not deny

Je c klin due proc e s s. Je c klin re c e ive d, “ the proc e dura l sa fe gua rds of notic e and a

re a sona ble tim e to pre pa

re a de fe nse ” to whic h he wa s e ntitle d. Unite d State s v . Pow e rs , 629 F.2d 619, 626 (9th C ir. 1980). B e c a use this c a se doe s not involve c rim ina l

* * The Honora

ble Kathry

n H. Vratil, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ka

nsa s, sitting by de signa

tion. 1 In a

c onc urre ntly file d opinion, we a ddre ss Je c klin’ s c ha lle nge to the arre st wa rrant a nd hold tha

t the distric t c ourt ha d a

uthority to issue the arre st warran t unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1826(a ). 2c onte m

p t, the distric t c o urt wa s not re quire d to issuean orde r to show c a

use . C f. Fe d. R . C rim . P. 42(a )(1) 2
. The distric t c ourt, m ore ove r, did not pre c lude Je c klin from offe ring a

ny argum e nts or e vide nc e in his de fe nse . Inde e d, Je c klin doe s not ide n tify any doc um e nt or a

rgum e nt tha

t he wa s pre v e nte d or de t e rre d from pre s e nting. Fina lly , be c a

u se the c onte m

pt finding did not turn on dispute d que stions of fa c t, no e vide ntia ry he aring wa s re q

uire d
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Ay re s , 166 F.3d 991, 995–96 (9th C i r. 1999). Je c klin’ s c onte ntion tha t the c onte m

pt wa s punitive , and he nc e tha

t the a dditiona l proc e dura l prote c tions of R ule 42 a pplie d, is without support in the

re c ord. 2. Pla intiffs sa

tisfie d the ir “ burde n of showing by c le ar and c o nvinc ing
e vide nc e tha

t [Je c klin] viola

te d a spe c ific and de finite orde r of the c o urt.” FTC v . Affordable

Me dia , 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th C ir. 1999) (quoting Stone v . C ity & C ounty of San Franc isc o , 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th C i r. 1992)). Je c klin fa ile d to provide any disc o ve ry

re sponse s in re sponse to the distric t c ourt’ s M ay 28, 2020, orde r granting Pla intiffs’ m otion to c om pe l. Inste a d, he a dvise d the c ourt, through his c ounse l, tha

t he and his c o-de fe nda

nts “ a re not going to c om

ply with theC ourt orde r c om

pe lling disc ove ry be c a

use the y do not a c c e pt jurisdic t ion of this C ourt
and the y c onside r Your Honor’ s de c i sion not to be e nforc e a b le in Switz e rlan d.”

2 Note tha

t the re is no pa

ra lle l provision in the

C ivil R ule s. 3Any

re a sona ble litiga nt would ha

ve unde rstood tha

t the se a c tions c onstitute d a
re fusa l to c om

ply with theM ay

28 orde r. C

f. In re Braughton , 520 F.2d 765, 767 (9th C ir. 1975) (pe r c uriam ) (“ B ra ughton ha s c at e goric a lly

re fuse d to c om

ple te any pa rt of the ha

ndwriting e xe m

pla r. The distric t judge wa s unde r no duty to ne gotia te with him

a fte r he ha d re fuse d to c om ple te any pa rt of the e xe m

pla r.” ). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting Pla i ntiffs’
m otion to c om

pe l. 3 The distric t c ourt prope rly e xe rc ise d is disc re t ion to ove rlook Pla i ntiffs’ m inor nonc om plia nc e with Distric t of Ne va da Loc a l R ule 26-7(b). 4 Pla i ntiffs, m ore ove r, we re e ntitle d to c onduc t post-judgme n t disc ove ry

unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C i vil Proc e dure 69. R e a d toge the r with thedistric t c ourt’ s findings of fa c t

and c onc lusions of la

w a fte r tria l, the judgm e nt both identifie d the pa rtie s for and a ga inst whom judgm e n t wa s be ing e nte re d a nd provide d a

de finite
and c e rta i n de signa

tion of theam ount tha

t Pla intiffs we re owe d by Je c klin a nd his
c o-de fe nda

nts. The judgm e nt the re fore c onstitute d a “ m one y judgm e nt.” Se e Ministry of De f. & Support for the

Arme d Forc e

s of the Islamic Re p u blicof Iran v
. C ubicDe f. Sy s., Inc
. , 665 F.3d 1091, 1101–02 (9th C ir. 2011).

3 W e c o nstrue Je c klin’ s notic e of a ppe a l to inc lude the M ay

28, 2020, orde r granting Pla intiffs’ m otion to c om pe l. Se e W

e st v . Unite d State

s , 853 F.3d 520, 523–24 (9th C ir. 2017).

4 M ore ove r, tha

t nonc om plia nc e wa s re m e die d

in short orde r. 44. Je c klin sugge sts tha t the distric t c ourt’ s c onte m pt orde r would re quire him to pa y a $1,000-pe r-day

fine e ve n if he we re c o nfine d pursua nt to thearre st warran t. He argue s tha

t, in thea bse nc e of spe c i fic findings, sim u lta ne ous sa nc tions of tha

t na t ure would be e xc e ssive
. Se e W hittak e r C orp. v . Ex e c uair C orp. , 953 F.2d 510, 517 (9th C ir. 1992) (“ G e ne ra lly , the m inim um sa n c t ion
ne c e ssa ry to obta in c om

plia nc e is to beim

pose d.” ); In re Grand J

ury Impane le d J an. 21, 1975 , 529 F.2d 543, 551 (3d C ir. 1976) (“ [A] distric t c ourt m a y use the se c ivil sa nc tions interc ha

n ge a b ly or suc c e ssive ly , but not sim u lta ne ously in the
a bse nc e of findings supporte d by the re c ord showing the ne c e ssity for suc h se ve re a c tion.” ). At this junc t

ure , Je c klin’ s c o nc e rn is only spe c ulative . Je c k l in is out of the
c ountry and the arre st wa

rrant will not be

e xe c ute d unle s s a nd until he

re t urns to the U nite d State s. Of c ourse , the distric t c ourt is fre e to a m e nd its wa

rra nt a nd orde r so tha

t the im position of the da ily

fine will be suspe nde d during a ny pe riod in whic h Je c klin is in custody pursua nt to thewa

rra nt, thus e lim inating thec a use of Je c k lin’ s c o nc e rn. Altrna tive ly , the c ourt m ay

m ake findings in support of the
ne c e ssity of c onc urre ntly

im posing both a

da ily fine and im

prisonm e n t. B ut,

5be c a

use the c o nc e rn is pre m a t ure , we do not a ddre ss it a t this time . 5 Je c klin c an c ha lle nge the im

position of sim

ulta ne ous sa nc tions unsupporte d by spe c ific findings in the future should tha t sc e na rio a c tua lly

arise
. The orde r gra

nting Pla i ntiffs’ m otion to c om pe l a nd the c onte m

pt orde r are AFFIRM E D
.

5 Ne ithe r do we a ddre ss the a pplic a bility of the fugitive dise ntitle m e nt doc trine a s it ha s not be e n ra ise d by the pa rtie s. 6