Canton

I. BACKGROUND

24 The primary allegations in this case are outlined in the court’s order denying Gayle Canton’s 25 motion to dismiss and are not repeated in full here. See Docket No. 43. In brief, Logtale obtained 26 a $2,083,334 judgment against James Canton in a breach of contract action. FAC ¶ 2; see Logtale, 27 months after the court in the Underlying Action entered the judgment, James and Gayle Canton began divorce proceedings. Id. As part of the divorce case, they executed a Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) that divided their assets and debts. FAC, Ex. B. Logtale alleges that the MSA “purposefully awarded James Canton only minimal assets . . . with the intent and purpose to shield the vast bulk of the Cantons’ assets from payment of the judgment owed to Logtale in the Underlying Action.” FAC ¶ 30. According to Logtale, the MSA constituted a fraudulent transfer with the intent to deprive Logtale of the money James Canton owes on the judgment. The FAC adds more allegations specific to IGF, which Logtale alleges is a “necessary, willing, and active participant” in the Cantons’ fraudulent scheme. FAC ¶¶ 7, 37. James…