United States v. Goldsmith

• Decision Date: 20 September 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-cv-00087-BEN-KSC
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GOLDSMITH, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT GOLDSMITH, Defendant.

No. 3:20-cv-00087-BEN-KSC

United States District Court, S.D. California

September 20, 2021

ORDER DENYING THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO AMEND THE JUDGMENT

[ECF NO. 29]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff the United States of America ("Plaintiff or the "Government"), with the authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury, see 31 U.S.C. § 3711(g)(4)(C), and at the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this action to collect from the Defendant, Robert Goldsmith ("Defendant" or "Mr. Goldsmith"), an outstanding civil penalty pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5) for failure to timely file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts ("FBARs") for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 calendar years. First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 3 ("FAC") at l, ^[1]

Before the Court is the Government's Motion to Amend Judgment (the "Motion"). ECF No. 19. The Motion was submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civi No. 30. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentatic law, the Court DENIES the Government's Motion.

II. BACKGROUND

A detailed factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Court's May 25, 2021 Order granting summary judgment in the Government's favor in United States v. Goldsmith, - F.Supp.3d -, No. 3:20-cv-00087-BEN-KSC, 2021 WL 2138520, at **1-6 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2021). On May 26, 2021, in accordance with that order, the Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff, the United States of America, in the amount of $309, 453.48, consisting of (1) $273, 846.00 in penalties authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(C)-(D) for willful violations of Mr. Goldsmith's obligation to report foreign accounts during the 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax years; (2) $30, 520.70 in late payment penalties authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3717(e)(2); and (3) $5, 086.78 for pre-judgment interest authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3717(a)-(d). See Judgment, ECF No. 28. The Clerk also noted that Plaintiff would recover post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date of judgment until the judgment is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a). See id.

On June 23, 2021, the Government timely filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (requiring a motion to amend a judgment to be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment) with Motion, ECF No. 29-1 ("Mot."). Mr. Goldsmith never opposed the Motion. However, on July 26, 2021, Mr. Goldsmith filed a Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 31. On July 30, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an order that Mr. Goldsmith's Notice of Appeal was ineffective until the Court disposes of the Government's outstanding Motion to Amend the Judgment.^[2] £CF No. 34.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Because "specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not listed in [FRCP 59(e)], the district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying the motion." See, e.g., McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.l, 1256 (9th Cir. 1999) ("The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration."); see also Palo Alto Town & Country VilL, Inc. v. Deutsche Lufthansa A.G., 91 Fed.Appx. 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming the district court's decision because it "did not abuse its discretion in denying Town & Country's motion to alter or amend the judgment" where the "[e]vidence to support its 'final determination' argument was available to Town & Country at the time of summary judgment, and thus [could not] qualify 'as newly discovered evidence'"). However, amendment of judgment qualifies as reconsideration of a judgment after its entry, which is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

A court may find it appropriate to amend a judgment where "(1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law." United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted). "Clear error occurs when 'the reviewing court on the entire record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Importantly, a "Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to 'raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.'" Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 492 (9th Cir. 2016).

In reviewing a motion to amend judgment following a grant of summary judgment, courts can consider the record available at the time the Court granted summary judgment. Palo Alto, 91 Fed.Appx. at 551; see also Lippiv. City Bank, 955 F.2d 599, 604, 614 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming the district court's decision declining to (1) enter the judgment in the form sought by the trustee or (2) amend or alter the judgment, "indicating its view that the issues of recovery against the remaining defendants had been decided conclusively at summary judgment"). Denial may be appropriate where the evidence relevant to amending a judgment was available "at the time of summary judgment, and thus cannot qualify as 'newly discovered evidence.'" Palo Alto, 91 F, App'x at 531; see also Lippi, 955 F.2d at 604 (finding that because "the district court properly declined to consider supplemental materials filed by the trustee after the hearing on the summary judgment motion, we do not consider those materials in reaching our decision").

IV. DISCUSSION

The Rolling Stones said it best: "You can't always get what you want." In this case, however, the Government got exactly what it wanted. The Court awarded the Government the exact sum of damages it requested in not just the Government's Complaint but also its Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Brief. Nonetheless, the Government now seeks increased damages.

The Government advances various reasons that the Court should amend the Judgment even though (1) the Court awarded the Government the amount prayed for and (2) the deficiencies in the Judgment were due to the Government's failure to provide the Court with the information it needed to award the Government the increased damages it now seeks. The Government argues the Court's judgment qualifies as a clear error of law, warranting amendment of the judgment, for three reasons: First, it contends that the Judgment "does not clarify that judgment is [being entered] against Robert Goldsmith." Mot. at 3:10-11; 3:23-4:2. Second, it argues that "the Judgment does not state that statutory penalties continue to apply post-judgment." Mot. at 3:9-10. Third, it contends that "[n]either the Court's Order nor the Judgment includes the full amount of pre-judgment interest and penalties in the computation of the amount due as of the judgment date." Id. at 3:7-9. The Government argues "[correcting these issues will prevent manifest injustice by awarding the United States the accruals to which it is statutorily entitled and by allowing [it]... to request and record an abstract of judgment, which will protect the United States' interest against other creditors of the defendant, Robert Goldsmith." Id. at 4:5-9.

The May 26, 2021 judgment (the "Judgment") specified as follows:

Judgment [is entered] in favor of Plaintiff, the United States of America, in the amount of $309, 453.48, consisting of (1) $273, 846.00 in penalties authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5)(C)-(D) for willful violations of Mr. Goldsmith's obligation to report foreign accounts during the 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax years; (2) $30, 520.70 in late payment penalties authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3717(e)(2); and (3) $5, 086.78 for prejudgment interest authorized by 31 U.S.C. § 3717(a)-(d). Plaintiff shall also recover post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date of judgment until the judgment is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

Judgment, ECF No. 28 (emphasis added). As outlined below, the Court finds the Government's three grounds for amending the Judgment show neither a clear error of law nor manifest injustice. Thus, the Court DENIES the Motion to Amend the Judgment.

A. Naming of Mr. Goldsmith

The Government "seeks to amend the judgment to make clear . . that judgment is being entered against Robert Goldsmith." Mot. at 2:28-3:3. The Court finds this argument to be a non-issue. First, the Court's order granting summary judgment and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of the Government does reference Mr. Goldsmith by name. See Order, ECF No. 27 ("SJ Order") at 72-73, HI 1-3. Second, as shown above, the Judgment clearly states that judgment is entered "in favor of Plaintiff, the United States of America ... for willful violations of Mr. Goldsmith's obligation to report foreign accounts during the 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax years." See Judgment, ECF No. 28. There are only two parties in this case: Plaintiff, and Mr. Goldsmith, the only defendant. Even if the Judgment does not spell out that it is entered against "Defendant Robert Goldsmith," it is clear from the fact that Judgment is entered in favor of "Plaintiff, the United States of America," that the Judgment would be against Mr. Goldsmith, the only other party in this case. Cf. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603 (2001). Thus, the Court does not find the failure of the Judgment, which does reference Mr. Goldsmith by name, to spell out that it...