Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gary Kremen v. Michael Joseph Cohen


January 2, 2013


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge


Plaintiff Gary Kremen ("Plaintiff") filed this action on November 8, 2011, under California's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA"), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.04, 3439.05, 20 3439.07, 3440, against Defendants Michael Joseph Cohen ("M. Cohen") and FNBPay Corporation 21 ("FNBPay"), a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Arizona (collectively 22 "Defendants"). See ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are the transferees of 23 certain property, including money, fraudulently transferred to each of them by Stephen Michael 24 Cohen ("S. Cohen" or "Judgment Debtor"), an individual against whom Plaintiff has an 25 enforceable money judgment in the amount of $67,867,053.37 ("Renewed Judgment"). At a 26 hearing on July 19, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff acknowledged that Plaintiff had by that point 27 succeeded in collecting approximately $20 million. Tr. at 8:3-8. Now before the Court is 28 Defendant Michael Cohen ("M. Cohen")'s renewed motion for summary judgment.

The Court finds these matters appropriate for determination without oral argument and accordingly 2 VACATES the January 3, 2012 hearing on the motion for summary judgment, see Civ. L. R. 7-3 1(b), and denies at moot M. Cohen's motion to appear by telephone at that hearing. Having 4 considered the parties' submissions and the relevant law, and for the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS M. Cohen's motion for summary judgment.*fn1


A. Factual Background

The facts of this case have previously been summarized in the Court's Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue; and 10 recounted here only to the extent necessary. Plaintiff is an internet entrepreneur who obtained a $65 million judgment (the "Judgment") in the United States District Court for the Northern District 13 of California, on April 3, 2001, against S. Cohen and S. Cohen's alter ego entities for fraudulently 14 converting the internet domain name See Compl. ¶ 16; see also Kremen v. Cohen, 15 337 F.3d 1024, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing the facts giving rise to the Judgment and 16 history between Kremen and S. Cohen relevant to this case); Kremen v. Jhuliana Aramis Cohen, 17 S. Cohen has resisted court orders and Kremen's attempts to exact payment on the Judgment. During the underlying litigation between Kremen and S. Cohen, S. Cohen failed to 20 comply with a preliminary injunction order requiring the repatriation of $25 million from offshore 21 accounts. See Pl.'s Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN") Ex. 15, ECF No. 158-7. S. Cohen fled to 22 Marshal pursuant to an arrest warrant issued in March 2001 for S. Cohen's refusal to comply with 24 various court orders. See RJN Ex. 4; RJN Ex. 6; Compl. at ¶ 18. In September 2005, Plaintiff 25 brought an enforcement application, and the United States District Court for the Northern District 26 of California found that seven individuals and twelve companies were acting in concert with S. 27

Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 68, and will therefore be No. 05-cv-01319-JM (POR), 2007 WL 1875779 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2007) (same). 18

Mexico, where, in October 2005, he was detained and deported into the custody of the U.S. 23 Cohen to evade enforcement of the Judgment and enjoined them from acting to interfere with 2 Plaintiff's rights thereunder. Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s First Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 76 ("Opp'n to 3 First MSJ"), at 4. On November 18, 2009, Plaintiff obtained a judgment and permanent injunction 4 against S. Cohen's step-daughter, Jhuliana Cohen; his ex-wife, Rosa Cohen; and his former 5 attorney, Gustavo Cortez, based on their participation in fraudulent transfers to assist S. Cohen's 6 attempts to conceal assets and avoid the Judgment. Id. at 4-5. On March 22, 2011, the United 7 States District Court for the Northern District of California renewed the Judgment against S. Cohen 8 in the amount of $67,867,053.36 ("Renewed Judgment"). Id. at 1-2.

Plaintiff's Renewed Judgment. Compl. at ¶ 21. Plaintiff further alleges that S. Cohen has used M. 14 M. Cohen's and/or FNBPay's name to transact business for the benefit of S. Cohen. Id. at ¶ 20. In 16 particular, Plaintiff asserts that deposits and withdrawals of funds into and out of a specific Wells 17

Fargo bank account (the "Wells Fargo Account"), opened by M. Cohen under the name FNBPay, 18 were the result of transfers made by, or at the direction of, S. Cohen. Id. 19

parte motion seeking a temporary restraining order ("TRO") freezing certain assets "to prevent the 22 dissipation of more than $109,000 that is currently being held at Wells Fargo Bank . . . under the 23 name FNBPay" ("Wells Fargo Account"). ECF No. 5 at 2. This account is alleged to be the 24 vehicle for the alleged fraudulent transfers from S. Cohen. For good cause shown, the Court 25 granted the TRO on December 7, 2011, granted Plaintiff's request for limited expedited discovery, 26 and issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") setting a briefing schedule and hearing date on 27

Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from disposing of funds held 28 in the Wells Fargo Account. See ECF No. 16. The Court also requested supplemental briefing on

Most recently, Plaintiff filed this action on November 8, 2011, seeking relief against M.

Cohen, who is S. Cohen's cousin, and against FNBPay, a corporation created by M. Cohen.

Plaintiff alleges that M. Cohen formed FNBPay to assist S. Cohen in funneling money through various websites with the intent to conceal S. Cohen's assets from Plaintiff and avoid payment of 13 Cohen to conduct business through FNBPay on S. Cohen's behalf, and to open bank accounts in 15

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this action on November 8, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed an ex whether this Court had personal jurisdiction over Defendants and whether venue in this district was 2 proper. Defendants answered the OSC on December 20, 2011, and both sides submitted 3 supplemental briefing on personal jurisdiction and venue. Defendants also filed a motion to 4 dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, or, in the alternative, a motion to transfer to the 5

Defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer. See ECF No. 68. Upon 7 introduction of evidence that the Wells Fargo Account at issue had in fact been closed in August 8

District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. On January 7, 2012, the Court denied 6 2011 with a closing balance of $0.00, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary 9 injunction for failure to show a risk of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, and 10 likewise dissolved the previously issued TRO on January 7, 2011. See id.

Defendant M. Cohen filed a motion for summary judgment on February 6, 2012. See ECF No. 72.

On April 2, 2012, S. Cohen filed a motion to intervene. See ECF No. 93. On July 17, 2012, this 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). In denying the motion for summary judgment, the Court noted that 15 Plaintiff had not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an actual transfer of 16 funds, as required by the UFTA. However, because discovery had not yet closed, Plaintiff was 17 entitled to complete discovery and attempt to oppose summary judgment on the basis of a fully 18 developed record. ECF No. 142. At a case management conference held on July 19, 2012, the 19

Plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to gather evidence to oppose summary judgment. See ECF No. 21 No. 156. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 29, 2012, ECF No. 158, and M. Cohen filed a 23 reply on November 13, 2012. ECF No. 163.

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to 28 any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Court denied the motion to intervene, and denied the motion for summary judgment under Federal 14 Court even extended the August 23, 2012 discovery deadline to October 4, 2012, to ensure that 20 143. M. Cohen then filed his renewed motion for summary judgment on October 15, 2012. ECF


A. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper where "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, Civ. P. 56(c). A "genuine" dispute as to material facts exists only if there is sufficient evidence for 2 a reasonable jury to return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 3 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court draws all 4 reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. 5

The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for 7 trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). To meet its burden, "the moving party 8 must either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or 9 defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential element 10 to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial." Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden of production, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show that 13 that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 1103. A party asserting that a fact is genuinely 14 disputed must support that assertion by either citing to particular parts of the record or by showing 15 that the materials cited by the moving party do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The non-movant must go beyond its pleadings "and by her own affidavits, or by 17 the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing 18 that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (internal quotation marks and 19 citation omitted). The non-movant must submit sufficient evidence to establish a material factual 20 dispute, but he need not show the issue will be resolved conclusively in his favor. Liberty Lobby, 21 477 U.S. at 248-49 (citation omitted). 22

Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 6

B. Analysis

As in his previous motion, M. Cohen moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to establish an essential element of his UFTA claim, namely that a transfer of 25 assets from S. Cohen to M. Cohen ever occurred. To prevail on his UFTA claims, Plaintiff has the 26 burden of proving the elements of a fraudulent transfer by a preponderance of the evidence. In re 27 3dfx Interactive, Inc., 389 B.R. 842, 863-64 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Whitehouse v. Six 28 Corp., 40 Cal. App. 4th 527, 604 (1995)). The UFTA provides that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor if it is made with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. 2

Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04(a)(1). In addition, a transfer is constructively fraudulent if it is made 3 without the debtor receiving a reasonable equivalent value in exchange for the transfer at a time 4 when the debtor was insolvent. Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.05. For a fraudulent transfer to occur, 5 however, there must be a "transfer" of an "asset" as defined by the UFTA. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. 6 Co. v. Schroeder, 179 Cal. App. 4th 834, 841 (2009). An "asset" includes any property of a debtor, 7 except to the extent such property is encumbered by a valid lien. Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.01(a)(1). 8

The UFTA defines "transfer" broadly as "every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, 9 voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and 10 includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a lien or other encumbrance." Cal. Civ. circumstantial evidence of connections between Defendants, S. Cohen, and the activity in the Wells 14 [was] insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an actual transfer of 16 funds." ECF No. 142 at 8. In opposing M. Cohen's renewed motion, Plaintiff has presented much 17 of that same evidence again. For the reasons stated in this Court's previous Order denying 18 summary judgment, the mere transfer in and out of the Wells Fargo Account of various sums 19 during specific time periods, without evidence that S. Cohen deposited them, cannot establish the 20 required transfer. Evidence of S. Cohen's pattern of using family members to hide assets cannot 21 change that fact. 22

23 not presented in opposing the previous motion. In particular, Plaintiff has pointed to a series of 24 transactions involving two companies, Baja Datacenter and Medicina Mexico, made through an 25 account in M. Cohen's name on the online payment processing site Paypal. Plaintiff has also 26 27 28 Code § 3439.01(i).

In ruling on M. Cohen's previous motion for summary judgment, this Court found that "the Fargo Account, even considered in light of the litigation history between Plaintiff and S. Cohen, 15 However, in opposing this renewed motion, Plaintiff has also produced some new evidence pointed to several other transactions involving Medicina Mexico but not involving the Paypal 2 account, and to deposits to the Wells Fargo Account made by a man named Mario Saucido.*fn2

As an initial matter, Plaintiff claims that any transfers not involving the Wells Fargo Account are outside the scope of what is alleged in the complaint, and therefore cannot form the 5 basis for liability in this lawsuit. The Court need not decide whether the non-Wells Fargo 6 transactions are within the boundaries of the claims stated in the complaint, because even if they 7 are, Plaintiff has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of these transactions 8 were fraudulent transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. 9

alleges constitute transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen: (1) deposits from a credit card in S. Cohen's name totaling $22.55; (2) deposits from a credit card in the name of a company called Baja Datacenter totaling $845.00; (3) deposits from a company called Medicina Mexico totaling 13 In addition to the Paypal transactions, Plaintiff claims that S. Cohen has transferred money 15 to M. Cohen by using Medicina Mexico money to fund M. Cohen's legal defense in this matter, 16 and by funding the purchase of domain names through Medicina Mexico. Finally, Plaintiff claims 17 that funds transferred into the Wells Fargo account by a man named Mario Saucido were actually 18 Taking all the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there is no 20 genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of these transactions constituted a fraudulent 21 transfer from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. 22

Plaintiff first argues that three deposits into M. Cohen's Paypal account -- one for $11.60, 24 one for $4.00, and one for $6.95 -- constitute fraudulent transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. 25 Plaintiff has produced evidence that these three deposits were from a credit card held in S. Cohen's 26 name. See Dillon Decl. at ¶ 17. Even assuming, as the Court must at summary judgment, that S. 27

Specifically, Plaintiff has identified four types of deposits to the Paypal account that he $25,359.48; and (4) deposits from Daniel Cohen totaling $1,960.00. 14 S. Cohen's funds, because Mario Saucido is "a business associate of S. Cohen's." Opp'n at 20. 1. Deposits from S. Cohen's Credit Card Cohen did, in fact, make these three deposits totaling $22.55 to M. Cohen's Paypal account, it does 2 not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether S. Cohen made transfers "with actual intent 3 to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor." Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04(a)(1). Plaintiff is seeking to 4 enforce a judgment exceeding $65,000,000. The suggestion that S. Cohen would attempt to 5 "hinder, delay, or defraud" plaintiff out of just over $20 by transferring it to his cousin's Paypal 6 account, when he owed such a significant amount and has surely spent significantly more already 7 in his attempts to participate in this litigation, simply is not credible. Summary judgment is 8 appropriate where what dispute there may be is not genuine, that is, "if the evidence is such that a 9 reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. 10 No reasonable jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that a fraudulent transfer occurred in the form of these three small deposits on the basis of this record. Accordingly, the three small deposits from this Visa card to M. Cohen's Paypal account do not raise a genuine issue 13 of material fact. 14

Plaintiff's second argument is that a series of small deposits totaling $845.00 from a credit card 16 held in the name of Baja Datacenter constitute fraudulent transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. To 17 begin with, though more than the $22.55 amount transferred from the S. Cohen credit card 18 discussed above, this amount is similarly negligible when compared with the amount of the 19 judgment Plaintiff is seeking to enforce. It would again be illogical to contemplate the 20 concealment of $845.00 to avoid payment of a judgment in the eight figures. 21

A transfer made not by the debtor himself but by a company he owns or controls may be a transfer 23 for UFTA purposes only if the company is the alter ego of the debtor. See Fleet Credit Corp. v. 24 TML Bus Sales, Inc., 65 F.3d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting with approval district court's 25 determination that transferor company was alter ego of debtor, allowing creditor to reach 26 transferred assets). To establish that a company is an individual's alter ego under California Law, a 27 party must prove "there is such a unity of interest and ownership that the individuality of such 28 corporation and the owner or owners of its stock has ceased." Mesler v. Bragg Mgmt. Co., 39 Cal.

2. Deposits from Baja Datacenter 15

Moreover, a transfer from Baja Datacenter is not, on its own terms, a transfer from S. Cohen. 22

3d 290, 299 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Mere ownership of all the 2 stock and control and management of a corporation by one or two individuals is not of itself 3 sufficient to cause the courts to disregard the corporate entity." Meadows v. Emett & Chandler, 99 4 As an initial matter, Plaintiff has not pleaded that Baja Datacenter (or any other company) is an 6 alter ego of S. Cohen. California Courts have found this fact alone can justify summary judgment 7 on a claim that can only succeed on an alter ego theory. See Leek v. Cooper, 194 Cal. App. 4th 8 Cal. App. 2d 496, 499 (1950). 5

399, 416 (2011) (upholding trial court's grant of summary judgment where claim against 9 corporation could succeed only on alter ego theory not pleaded in complaint). 10 as follows: (1) that S.

Cohen once presented himself as Baja Datacenter's representative in negotiating domain name 13 ownership, Dillon Decl. at ¶ 22; and (2) that the addresses used to register the domain name 14 and used as the billing address for the credit card in Baja Datacenter's name are 15 also addresses for S. Cohen. See id. Even interpreted in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, these 16 two facts simply cannot establish the "unity of interest" required to treat Baja Datacenter's actions 17 as S. Cohen's actions. Thus, Baja Datacenter is not an alter ego of S. Cohen. Accordingly, there is 18 no triable issue of fact as to whether the Baja Datacenter deposits were transfers from S. Cohen to 19

3. Deposits from Medicina Mexico 21

$25,359.48 made to M. Cohen's Paypal account tied to a company called Medicina Mexico. As an 23 initial matter, the evidence does not show that the relevant deposits were made by the company 24

M. Cohen's Paypal account by customers making online purchases from Medicina Mexico, 26 facilitated by a payment service called osCommerce22. Id. Plaintiff has argued that "$25,359.48 27 was deposited into M. Cohen's PayPal Account based on Medicina Mexico's online pharmacy 28 sales." Dillon Decl. at ¶ 40; Opp'n at 7. But Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that the

Moreover, the evidence Plaintiff has adduced that Baja Datacenter is an alter ego of S. Cohen is 11 not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The evidence is

M. Cohen. 20

Plaintiff's third argument concerns a more significant amount of money: deposits totaling 22 Medicina Mexico. See Dillon Decl. at ¶ 40. Rather, the deposits appear to be payments made to 25 transfer came from Medicina Mexico or from S. Cohen, rather than from the customers who made 2 the purchases. Transfers from third-party customers to M. Cohen are not transfers from S. Cohen 3 for UFTA purposes. 4

Even if the payments had come directly from Medicina Mexico, they would not, on the 5 evidence Plaintiff has adduced, constitute transfers from S. Cohen. Like Baja Datacenter, 6

Medicina Mexico is a business, and thus transfers from Medicina Mexico do not constitute 7 transfers from S. Cohen unless Plaintiff is able to establish that Medicina Mexico is merely an alter 8 ego of S. Cohen. Plaintiff has presented evidence that 98% of Medicina Mexico is owned by Baja 9

Datacenter. See Dillon Decl. at ¶ 29. As this Court has found that Baja Datacenter is not, on the 10 evidence adduced, an alter ego of S. Cohen, Baja Datacenter's ownership of Medicina Mexico 11 cannot establish any relationship between S. Cohen and Medicina Mexico. Even if it could, mere 12 ownership is not sufficient to establish an alter ego. See Meadows, 99 Cal. App. 2d at 499. This 13 leaves only the 2% of Medicina Mexico, which Plaintiff claims is owned by S. Cohen. S. Cohen's 14 ownership of 2% of Medicina Mexico cannot, even giving Plaintiff every possible benefit of the 15 doubt, establish the "unity of interest" required to treat Medicina Mexico as an alter ego.

Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the 17 deposits allegedly for Medicina Mexico purchaces were transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. 18

Beyond the Paypal account transfers, Plaintiff has also alleged that money from Medicina Mexico is funding M. Cohen's legal bills. This argument fails to establish a transfer for the same 21 reason stated above: a transfer from Medicina Mexico is not a transfer from S. Cohen. 22

Additionally, Plaintiff presents evidence that some domain names owned by Medicina Mexico 23 were purchased using Baja Datacenter's and S. Cohen's credit cards. It is not clear how Plaintiff 24 believes this constitutes a transfer from S. Cohen to M. Cohen, as it does not appear that M. Cohen 25 received either funds or the domain names in these transactions. Thus, S. Cohen's funding of the 26 purchase of domain names does not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there 27 was a transfer from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. 28

4. Non-Paypal Medicina Mexico transactions 19

5. Transfers from Daniel Cohen

Plaintiff also argues that four transfers from Daniel Cohen, who is S. Cohen's son, to M. 2

Cohen's Paypal account constitute transfers from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. Plaintiff has presented no 3 evidence whatsoever that these transfers came from S. Cohen, rather than from Daniel Cohen. 4

Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether they were, 5 in fact, transfers from S. Cohen. 6

Plaintiff claims that deposits to the Wells Fargo Account totaling $280.00, made by Mario 8 Mario Saucedo had been making transfers to S. Cohen, and at some point stopped those transfers, 10 and started making transfers to the Wells Fargo Account. Plaintiff has presented no evidence 11 whatsoever to establish that the funds actually came from S. Cohen. The fact that Mario Saucedo

6. Transfers from Mario Saucedo

Saucedo, are actually transfers from S. Cohen. Plaintiff's only evidence for this assumption is that 9 made some transfers to S. Cohen does not establish that subsequent transfers to M. Cohen were 13 actually being made by S. Cohen, rather than by Mario Saucedo. Moreover, Plaintiff has not 14 presented any evidence aside from the bank transfers of the relationship between Mario Saucedo 15 and S. Cohen or M. Cohen to substantiate his assertion that Mario Saucdeo is S. Cohen's business 16 associate. Accordingly, these deposits cannot be transfers from S. Cohen for purposes of the 17

In sum, Plaintiff has produced some evidence suggesting suspicious behavior on the part of S. 19 Cohen and the various companies with which he appears to be involved. But as in Plaintiff's 20 opposition to Defendants' previous summary judgment motion, Plaintiff has not adduced prima 21 facie evidence of an actual fraudulent transfer of assets from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. To prevail 22 under the UFTA, Plaintiff must prove that there was an actual transfer of assets from S. Cohen to 23

The only actual potential transfer of any kind Plaintiff has identified was for an amount so 25 negligible in the context of the large judgment at issue here that there can be no genuine issue of 26 fact concerning S. Cohen's intent in making that transfer. 27

Moreover, Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to produce evidence to substantiate his 28 allegations of fraudulent transfers, and has repeatedly failed to do so. In particular, the Court

UFTA. 18

M. Cohen, and that S. Cohen had actual or constructive intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Plaintiff. 24 denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction when Plaintiff's allegations concerning the 2 contents of the Wells Fargo Account made in seeking a temporary restraining order could not be 3 substantiated. See ECF No. 68 at 18-19 (denying preliminary injunction). Further, rather than 4 granting Defendants' first summary judgment motion when Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of 5 fraudulent transfers, the Court allowed Plaintiff to complete additional discovery, and even 6 extended the discovery deadline to ensure that Plaintiff had sufficient opportunity to marshal the 7 evidence. See ECF Nos. 142 (denying summary judgment); 143 (extending discovery deadline). 8

In opposing the present motion, rather than producing the necessary evidence to substantiate his 9 original allegations about the Wells Fargo Account and FNB Pay, Plaintiff has resorted to a range 10 of arguments he has never before presented, and which concern accounts and entities never Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to 14 whether there were actual fraudulent transfers to Defendants by S. Cohen, there can be no liability 15 under California's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Though the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's desire to collect the remainder of his judgment, Plaintiff has demonstrated through 17 repeated failure to prove his case that he simply does not have evidence of fraudulent transfers 18 from S. Cohen to M. Cohen. Accordingly, M. Cohen's motion for summary judgment is 19 GRANTED.

The Clerk shall close the file.

mentioned in the Complaint or in any of his previous filings, a tactic which confirms that Plaintiff has not been able to locate any evidence to support his original claims.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.