TMCO, Ltd v. Brodsky

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 TMCO, LTD, Case No. 20-cv-09300-AGT 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 MIKHAIL BRODSKY, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 79 Defendants. [12] 13 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. As discussed during the February 3, 14 2023, hearing, genuine issues of material fact exist as to: 15 1. whether Alex Feerer transferred the Lombard property to Mikhail and Tatyana Brodsky 16 with the “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” TMCO in its judgment collection 17 efforts, see Cal. Civ. Code § 3439.04 (a)(1); 18 2. whether the Brodskys took the Lombard property from Feerer “in good faith,” see Cal. 19 Civ. Code § 3439.08(a); Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang, 11 Cal. App. 5th 33, 37 (2017) 20 (holding that “a transferee cannot benefit from the good faith defense if that transferee 21 had fraudulent intent, colluded with a person who was engaged in the fraudulent 22 conveyance, actively participated in the fraudulent conveyance, or had actual 23 knowledge of facts showing knowledge of the transferor’s fraudulent intent”); and 24 3. whether the Brodskys paid Feerer “reasonably equivalent value” for the Lombard 25 property, see Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3439.08 (a), 3439.05(a).1 [27] 1 The factual issues precluding summary judgment on TMCO’s claims for fraudulent transfer ] These genuine issues of material fact must be presented to a jury. Accordingly, 2 || defendants’ motion is denied, and this case will proceed to trial on April 17, 2023. The Court will 3 issue a separate order setting forth pretrial deadlines and guidelines for trial. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: February 8, 2023 [7] A “TSE 8 United States Magistrate Judge [10] 1] [16] «17 Oo Z 18