Diamond
Diamond v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc. (In re IVDS Interactive Acquisition Partners)
Opinion
lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Defendants-Appellants Michael and David Dambro (the Dambros) appeal the district court’s judgment, which held them jointly and severally liable for $3,600,000, and individually liable for punitive damages because of their participation in a conspiracy to commit a fraudulent transfer. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d).
I.Failure to Preserve Challenge to the Sufficiency of the Evidence
A party in a civil case must make motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) and (b) in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a jury trial. Nitco Holding Corp. v. Boujikian, 491 F.3d 1086, 1089 (9th Cir.2007). The Dam-bros failed to do so in this case, and therefore waived the argument that they should not be liable because they were not individually transferees.
II. The Remedy of Damages for Fraudulent Transfer
Damages are a permissible remedy for fraudulent transfer under federal and Florida law. 11 U.S.C. § 550 (a); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 726.108 (1)(c)(3); Hansard Constr. Corp. v. Rite Aid of Fla. Inc., 783…