N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ATTEB UR

Y GR AIN LLC , A lim ite d lia

bility c om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GR AYN C OM PANY, a

c orpora tion; VIC ENTE C OR TEZ, a

n individua l, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 18-56325

D.C . No. 2:15-c v-05258-R -PJW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2020 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON, C LIFTON, a nd B R ESS, C irc uit Judge s. In a prior a ppe a l, this c ourt a ffirm e d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Pla intiff Atte bury Gra in LLC for c la im s unde r C a lifornia ’ s Uniform Voida ble Tran sa c tions Ac t (UVTA) a

rising from

the fraudule nt tra

nsfe r of Supe rior Gra in C o., a c orn 

# FIL ED FEB 21 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.proc e s sing busine s s, to De fe nda nts Vic e n te C orte z and Gra yn C o. Se e Atte bury Grain LLC

v . Gray n C

o . , 721 F. App’ x 669, 671-72 (9th C ir. 2018). This c ourt re ve rse d sum

m ary judgm e nt on Attebury ’ s c la im of unjust e nric h m e nt a nd
re m ande d for the d i stric t c ourt to dism iss tha t c la i m an d “ de te rm ine the am ount of dam a ge s due on the fra

udule nt tra

nsfe r c la im s a lone .” Id. a t 672. On re m and, the distric t c o urt a

warde d da

m a ge s tota l ing $1,148,107.55, c om prise d of Atte bury ’ s $825,706.95 a

rbitration a

ward a ga i nst Supe rior plus pre judgm e nt inte re st. W e a ffirm
. W e re je c t De fe nda

nts’ argum e nt on a

ppe a l tha t the distric t c o urt viola

te d this
c ourt’ s m an da t e by aw arding da m a ge s without holding a

he aring or ta

king
a dditiona l e vide nc e on re m and. Nothing in the m andate re quire d the distric t c ourt to ta ke suc h a c t i on. W e a lso re

je c t De fe nda

nts’ argum e nt tha

t Supe rior tra

nsfe rre d only

its
e quipm e nt a

nd c orn inve ntory t o De fe nda nts. De fe nda

nts sugge s t tha

t la ngua ge in this c ourt’ s m e m orandum disposition re fe rring to the tra nsfe r of Supe rior’ s e quipm e nt a

nd c orn inve ntory e sta

blishe s the “ la

w of the c a se ” tha

t only suc h
a sse ts we re tra

nsfe rre d. Se e Atte bury

Grain , 721 F. App’ x at 671. Howe ve r, the la ngua ge re lie d upon by De fe nda nts doe s not a

m ount to a

holding a s to the ide ntity of the a sse ts tra

nsfe rre d, whic h wa s not a n issue be fore this c ourt on a ppe a l , a nd
2doe s not a ffe c t the unc ha lle n ge d de te rm ination tha t Supe rior tra

nsfe rre d

“ substa n tia lly a ll” of its a sse ts to De fe nda nts. The distric t c ourt c o m

plie d with this c ourt’ s m an da te by de te rm ining the
a m ount of da

m a ge s due on Atte bury ’ s fra udule nt tra

nsfe r c la im s pursua

nt to the UVTA, whic h a l lows da

m a ge s ba se d on e ithe r “ the va l ue of the a sse t transfe rre d . . . or the am ount ne c e ssa ry to sa t isfy the c re d itor’ s c la im , whic he ve r is le ss.” C a l. C iv. C ode § 3439.08(b)(1). The re c ord shows tha t the distric t c ourt ha d suffic i e nt e vide nc e be fore it tha t the va lue of Supe rior’ s e ntire busine ss e xc e e de d the a m ount of the arbitration a ward. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not e rr in
awarding da

m a ge s ba se d on this la

tte r a m ount. AFFIRM E D.

3