1 2 3 4 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
IN THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LAWRENCE J. WARFIELD, RECEIVER, Plaintiff, vs. CIV 03 2390 PHX JAT MICHAEL ALANIZ, et al. Defendants. AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
x
Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Judgment is entered as follows: As to defendant Leonard Bestgen, Inasmuch as the Verdicts are on the following claims in the following amounts: Federal
Securities Laws claim $1,000; Constructive Fraud claim $10,400; Negligence per se claim $32,000; Arizona Securities Laws claim $10,400; and Unjust Enrichment claim $1,000; and inasmuch as these amounts are not cumulative; accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is
22
entered in favor of the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, in the amount of the highest verdict,
23
$32,000.
24 25
///
Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT
-1Document 581
Filed 03/12/2007
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4
As to defendant Robert Carroll, Inasmuch as the Verdicts are on the following claims in the following amounts: Federal Securities Laws claim $800; Constructive Fraud claim $8,300; Negligence per se claim $37,000; Arizona Securities Laws claim $8,300; and Unjust Enrichment claim $800; and inasmuch as
5
these amounts are not cumulative; accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is entered in
6
favor of the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, in the amount of the highest verdict, $37,000.
7
As to defendant Leonard Crosswell,
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Inasmuch as the Verdicts are on the following claims in the following amounts: Federal Securities Laws claim $700; Constructive Fraud claim $7,100; Negligence per se claim $31,900; Arizona Securities Laws claim $7,100; and Unjust Enrichment claim $700; and inasmuch as these amounts are not cumulative; accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is entered in favor of the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, in the amount of the highest verdict, $31,900. As to defendant Charles Davis, Inasmuch as the Verdicts are on the following claims in the following amounts: Federal Securities Laws claim $2,000; Constructive Fraud claim $19,900; Negligence per se claim $109,900; Arizona Securities Laws claim $19,900; and Unjust Enrichment claim $2,000; and
18
inasmuch as these amounts are not cumulative; accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is
19
entered in favor of the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, in the amount of the highest verdict,
20 21 22 23 24 25
$109,900. As to defendant Paul Richard, Inasmuch as the Verdicts are on the following claims in the following amounts: Federal Securities Laws claim $1,400; Constructive Fraud claim $14,300; Negligence per se claim $64,700; Arizona Securities Laws claim $14,300; and Unjust Enrichment claim $1,400; and
Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT
-2Document 581
Filed 03/12/2007
Page 2 of 3
1 2 3 4
inasmuch as these amounts are not cumulative. Defendant Paul Richard had previously paid restitution in the amount of $23,000. The highest verdict awarded by the jury in favor of the Receiver is the sum of $64,700, and giving credit for the amount paid by way of restitution and deducting $23,000 from the amount of the verdict, IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is entered in
5
favor of the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, in the amount of $41,700.
6
As to defendant Patrick Wehrly,
7
Inasmuch as the Verdicts are on the following claims in the following amounts: Federal
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Securities Laws claim $700; Constructive Fraud claim $7,100; Negligence per se claim $39,000; Arizona Securities Laws claim $7,100; and Unjust Enrichment claim $700; and inasmuch as these amounts are not cumulative; accordingly IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is entered in favor of the Receiver, Lawrence J. Warfield, in the amount of the highest verdict, $39,000. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Leonard Bestgen, Robert Carroll, Rudy Crosswell, Charles Davis, Paul Richard and Patrick Wehrly with respect to Plaintiff's Negligence claim, Conversion claim, Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act § 441004A(1) claim, and Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act § 44-1004A(2) claim.
DATE:
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT
-3Document 581
Filed 03/12/2007
Page 3 of 3