Free Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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. PROPOSED 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 580-3

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 580-3

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 580-3

Filed 03/12/2007

Page 3 of 3