UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
August 30, 2011
DAVID A GILL, SOLELY IN HIS CAPACITY AS PERMANENT RECEIVER IN THE MATTER OF SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
DIVERSIFIED LENDING GROUP, INC.; APPLIED EQUITIES, INC.; SCOTT SIEMERS AND TINA M. PLACOURAKIS,
BRUCE F. FRIEDMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Manuel L. Real U.S. District Judge
FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST BRUCE FRIEDMAN
The Court, having considered the Application for Final Judgment Against Defendant Bruce Friedman ("the Application") submitted by David A. Gill ("the Receiver"), the exhibits and declarations submitted in support of the Application, the other documents on file, and the applicable law, has concluded that the Receiver's Application shall be granted in its entirety.
The Receiver has complied with all the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and Local Rule 55-1. Additionally, the Court has considered the seven factors enumerated in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986), and determined that granting a default judgment against Defendant Friedman is appropriate.
While policy generally favors decisions on the merits, Defendant Friedman's failure to Answer the Complaint renders such a decision impossible. There appears to be no likelihood of dispute concerning the material facts of this case, and Defendant Friedman's default is not due to excusable neglect.
Furthermore, the Court finds there is no just reason to delay entry of Final Judgment against Bruce Friedman. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b). As the principal of Diversified Lending Group, Inc., and the primary wrongdoer in this Action, Mr. Friedman is uniquely positioned in this litigation. The claims against him, and any possible defenses thereto, do not depend on resolution of the Receiver's claims against any other defendant. Conversely, the Receivership Estate will immediately benefit from a Final Judgment against Mr. Friedman at this time.
The factual allegations from the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") are taken as true. See Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F. 2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). The Court has considered those factual allegations in the FAC, along with the evidence submitted in support of the Receiver's Application, including a declaration and exhibit from the Receiver's accountant, and the Court finds that Mr. Friedman is liable on the fraudulent transfer claims in the amount of $37,354,445.80.
It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND, DECREED that Defendant Bruce Friedman is liable on the following claims:
(1) Claim 9 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers;
(2) Claim 10 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers;
(3) Claim 11 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers; and
(4) Claim 12 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers.
The Receiver is entitled to damages in the amount of $37,354,445.80 from Defendant Bruce Friedman. It is further ORDERED that, since there is no just reason for delay, this JUDGMENT is to be entered forthwith as a Final Judgment.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.