N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In the M atte r of: HUM AN DYNAM IC S C ORPOR ATION, De

btor, REOR GANIZED HUM AN DYNAM IC S C ORPOR ATION, a

n Ariz ona c orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. HUM AN DYNAM IC S C APTIVE M ANAGEM ENT, a Ne va da c orporation; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 12-17086

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00509-DGC M EM O R ANDUM *

In the M atte r of: HUM AN DYNAM IC S C ORPOR ATION, De

btor, REOR GANIZED HUM AN DYNAM IC S C ORPOR ATION, a

n Ariz ona c orporation, No. 12-17207

D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00509-DGC



# FIL ED D EC 11 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HUM AN DYNAM IC S C APTIVE M ANAGEM ENT, a Ne va da c orporation; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. The se are c ross-a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r a ffirm i ng the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa

vor of the re o rganiz e d de btor, a nd the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s orde rs e x t e nding a p pe lla nts’ tim e to a

p pe a l. The ba

nkruptc y c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt a ga inst de fe nda nts G. Dougla s Ande rton, Edwa rd Ky le Ande rton, a

nd PC Ge ne ra l Age nc y

a fte r finding, a

m ong othe r things, tha

t G. Dougla s Ande rton ha d fra udule ntly c a

use d the tra nsfe r of funds be longing to the pre -pe tition de

b tor, a nd tha t Edwa rd Ande rton a

nd PC Ge ne ra l Age nc y

we re

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 1 2 - 1 7 0 8 6 2transfe re e s of the funds. W e re vie w the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision inde

pe nde nt of the de c ision of thedistric t c o urt, unde r a c le ar e rror sta

nda rd a s to fa c t

ua l findings, a

nd we a ffirm . Se e Domingue z v . Mille r (

In reDomingue

z ), 51 F.3d 1502, 1506 (9th C ir. 1995). The ba nkruptc y c o urt did not c l e arly

e rr in finding tha

t Dougla s Ande rton, Edwa rd Ky le Ande rton, a

nd PC Ge ne ra l Age nc y

we re lia ble to the re orga

niz e d de btor on a c c ount of tra

nsfe rs c a use d by Dougla s Ande rton. Se eRe tz v . Samson ( In re Re tz ), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ A c ourt’ s fa c tua l de t e rm ination is c le arly e rrone o u s if it is illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in the re c o rd.” ); Husain v . Oly mpicAirw ay s , 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2002) (“ [I] f the distric t c o urt’ s findings a

re pla usiblein light of the

re c ord vie we d in its entire ty , the a ppe lla t e c ourt c annot re ve rse e ve n if it is c onvinc e d it would ha ve found diffe re ntly .” ); se ealso Ande rson v . C ity of Be sse me r C ity , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985) (“ Whe re the re are two pe rm issiblevie ws of the e vide n c e , the fa c tfinde r’ s c hoic e be twe e n t

he m c annot be c le arly

e rrone o us.” ). The ba

nkruptc y c o urt’ s de te rm i nations we re s upporte d by the re c ord, inc luding the undispute d fa c ts c onta ine d in thepa

rtie s’ joint pre -tria l sta

te m e nt, the de btor’ s a

n d its pa re nt’ s tax re turns, a nd the te stim o ny

ta ke n during theba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s four-da

y be nc h tria l.

1 2 - 1 7 0 8 6 3The ba nkruptc y c o urt a lso did not a

buse its disc re tion in e xte nding a ppe lla nts’ tim e to file the ir notic e of a ppe a l , be c a

use the re c ord supporte d a de te rm i nation tha

t c ounse l’ s ne gle c t wa s e xc u sa ble . Se ePione e r Inv . Se rv s. C o. v . Brunsw ic k

Assoc s. Ltd. P’ship , 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 1 7 0 8 6 4