IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

JAMES BURT, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHRISTINE DENOYO, an individual, 

Defendant, 

- and -

KEY TRADING LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company; 

RAFAEL DENOYO, an individual; 

DAVID SULLIVAN, an individual; 

PETER LARKIN, an individual; 

Judgement Defendants. 

David C. Silver 

Silver Law Group 

11780 West Sample Road 

Coral Springs, FL 33065 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case No. 6:14-cv-1098-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

I 

-, 

I 

Case 6:14-cv-01098-AA Document 31 Filed 04/14/15 Page 1 of 5
Franklin J. Seibert 

F.J. Seibert, LLC 

1275 Oxford Street SE 

Salem, OR 97302 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Jeffrey A. Trautman 

Fetherston Edmonds, LLP 

960 Liberty Street SE, Suite 110 

Salem, OR 97302 

Attorney for Defendant 

AIKEN, Chief Judge: 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, plaintiff James Burt moves to 

amend his complaint against defendant Christine Denoyo, n/k/ a 

Christine Jordan. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's 

motion is granted. 

BACKGROUND 

At all relevant times, Rafael Denoyo and David Sullivan owned 

and operated Key Trading, LLC ("Key") . In January 2 0 05, Peter 

Larkin joined Denoyo and Sullivan as Key associates. In March 2005, 

Larkin introduced plaintiff to Denoyo and Sullivan. Between 

September 2005 and January 2006, plaintiff invested $2,000,000 with 

Key based on Denoyo's, Larkin's, and/or Sullivan's representations 

that Key would yield plaintiff "monthly returns [on his] 

investment." Compl. 'TI 15. Plaintiff never received any proceeds 

from Key. "In essence, [Key] stole the $2,000,000 from [plaintiff] 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01098-AA Document 31 Filed 04/14/15 Page 2 of 5
with no intent of returning any funds to him." Id. at <JI 18. 

In September 2010, Key, Sullivan, Larkin, and Denoyo entered 

into a settlement agreement with plaintiff, agreeing to repay 

plaintiff $1,932,214. Key, Sullivan, Larkin, and Denoyo 

subsequently breached that agreement. As a result, in October 2012, 

plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court 

of the District of New Jersey ("the New Jersey Court") alleging 

fraud and breach of Contract. In October 2 013, Key, Sullivan, 

Larking, and Denoyo negotiated a provisional settlement that was 

ultimately approved by the New Jersey Court. In June 2014, the New 

Jersey Court entered judgment in the principal amount of $1,800,000 

against Key, Sullivan, Larkin, and Denoyo after they defaulted on 

the October 2013 settlement agreement. 

On July 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint in this Court 

against defendant, asserting violations of Or< Rev. Stat. § 95.230, 

Or. Rev. Stat. § 95.240, and Or. Rev. Stat. § 59.115. Specifically, 

plaintiff alleged: (1) Denoyo and/or Key transferred $57,705 to 

defendant between October 2007 and January 2012; (2) in 2007, 

Denoyo and/or Key provided $234,811 to Centurian Securities, LLC 

("Centurian"), a company controlled by Denoyo; these amounts "were 

later directly disbursed" to defendant; (3) Denoyo and defendant 

used plaintiff's "stolen funds to live a lavish lifestyle in an 

affluent neighborhood and acquire at least six vehicles;" and (4) 

defendant "aided and abetted" Key, Denoyo, Sullivan, and Larkin "in 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01098-AA Document 31 Filed 04/14/15 Page 3 of 5
their scheme to defraud Plaintiff." Compl. ':![':![ 36-40, 57, 63. 

On August 8, 2014, this Court denied plaintiff's motion for 

preliminary injunction freezing defendant's assets during the 

pendency of this action, as well as authorizing expedited discovery 

and a full accounting. 

In light of new information revealed through discovery, 

plaintiff moves for leave to file an amended complaint. Mot. and 

Mem. to File First Am. Compl. 2. In the proposed amended complaint 

("PAC"), plaintiff seeks to reflect "new information which revealed 

money transactions nearly quadruple that which were originally 

known to Plaintiff." Id. In addition, plaintiff seeks to include 

allegations relating to $250,000 in wire transfers and checks from 

Key and other companies controlled by Rafael Denoyo that were 

funneled through defendant's account with her full knowledge and 

contrary to her earlier declaration to the Court. Id. Defendant has 

not filed any opposition to this motion. 

STANDARDS 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, leave to amend proceedings 

"shall be freely given when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a). Courts apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 with "extreme liberality." 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051 (9th 

Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). In determining whether a motion to 

amend should be granted under this rule, the court generally 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01098-AA Document 31 Filed 04/14/15 Page 4 of 5
considers four factors: (1) undue delay; (2) bad faith; (3) 

futility of amendment; and (4) prejudice to the opposing party. 

Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1482 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(citation omitted). These factors are not weighted equally: 

prejudice or futility, alone, is sufficient to deny a motion to 

amend. Eminence, 316 F.3d at 1052; Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 

1067, 1077 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 

Due to the "extreme liberality" with which the Court evaluates 

motions for leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, and the fact 

that defendant has not filed an opposition, the Court finds no 

evidence of undue delay, bad faith, futility, or prejudice that 

warrants denial. Eminence, 316 F.3d at 1051. 

For the reasons provided above, plaintiff's motion to amend 

(doc. 29) is GRANTED. An amended complaint should be filed with 

this court within ten (10) days of this Order. 

IT IS 

Dated 

SO ORDERED. 

thisKday of April 2015. 

--+-,atf::7. I U,A.A_ 

Ann Aiken 

W~ United States District Judge 

Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01098-AA Document 31 Filed 04/14/15 Page 5 of 5