Diamond

Diamond v. Digital Interactive Associates, Inc. (In re IVDS Interactive Acquisition Partners)

Good Law
302 F. App'x 574
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 2008Nos. 07-55904, 07-55905California520 words

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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.