Dar SA v. JLA Nordstjaerna

MEMORANDUM **

David and Karen Johnson appeal pro se the district court’s judgment in favor of Dar SA in its action alleging securities fraud under Washington law. Dar SA cross appeals for attorneys’ fees for defending the appeal. We affirm the district court’s judgment.

The court did not err as a matter of law in applying Washington’s securities law, because the court was not required to find that David Johnson engaged in coercion or pressure in order to find him liable under the statute. See RCW 21.20.010; see also Haberman v. Washington Public Power Supply System, 109 Wash.2d 107 , 744 P.2d 1032 , 1051 (1987); Kittilson v. Ford, 93 Wash.2d 223 , 608 P.2d 264, 266 (1980). Nor was it clear error for the court to conclude as a matter of fact that Johnson was hable under the statute, for the record is replete with evidence of his active involvement in this fictional investment scheme, including evidence of a negotiated commission for his participation.

The Johnsons’ evidentiary objection to the admission of the Washington Department of Financial Institutions consent order was not raised in the district court and therefore the argument was waived. See Federal Rule of Evidence…