Free Other Notice - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Burton M. Bentley, Esq. (Bar No. 00980) BURTON M. BENTLEY, P.C. 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 480 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 (602) 861-3055 (602) 861-3230 fax Attorney for Defendants Rada IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA LAWRENCE J. WARFIELD, RECEIVER, CAUSE NO. CIV'03 2390 PHX JAT NOTICE OF APPEAL vs. (Assigned to Hon. James A. Teilborg) MICHAEL ALANIZ, et al. Defendants.

9

Plaintiff,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Notice is hereby given that the following named defendants: Leonard & Betty Bestgen Rudy & Mary Crosswell Charles Davis Richard Derk Orville Dale Frazier Dwight Lankford John & Candes Rada Paul Richard Patrick & Andrea Wehrly

("Rada Defendants") in the above-named case hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from "Amended Order Supercedes August 1, 2006, Order" entered in this action on the 6th day of September, 2006, it its entirety, except for (1) the Order of the Court denying Plaintiff's Motion for

24 25

Partial Summary Judgment and (2) the Order of the Court granting Defendants'

-1-

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

Document 521

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2

Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Six. More particularly, the Rada Defendants appeal from the following findings:

3 4 5 6 7

(1) exemptions; (2)

That the CGAs at issue in this case are securities not subject to any

The CGAs in this case did not shift the risk of investment from the

investors to Mid-America;
8 9 10 11 12

(3)

The investor funds were pooled in a "common enterprise" with the

expectation that Mid-America's management of the funds would result in profits to the investors and the CGAs were in fact investment contracts; (4) Mid-America is entitled to seek return of the commissions for the

13 14 15 16

benefit of the receivership, so that it may reimburse its creditors and/or victims of its tortuous actions; (5) The Receiver has standing to bring state law claims; The District Court has personal jurisdiction over the non-resident

17 18 19 20 21

(6)

Rada Defendants pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (§27 of the Securities Exchange Act); (7) The failure of the Court to find as a matter of law that the Receiver

22 23 24 25

failed to act with reasonable diligence to discover the fraudulent nature of the transfers; and (8) The Court granted the Rada Defendants' Motion for Summary

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

-2Document 521

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2

Judgment with respect to any A.R.S. §§44-1004(A)(2) and 44-1005 fraudulent transfer claims prior to December 3, 1999, the granting of which is illusory,

3 4 5 6 7

because, by the Court's Order, the fraudulent transfer claims are at the same time subject to A.R.S. § 44-1004(A)(1), which permits an alternative 1-year statute of limitations from the date of discovery. Dated at Phoenix, Arizona this 21st day of September, 2006.

8

BURTON M. BENTLEY, P.C.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

_/s/ Burton M. Bentley _________ Burton M. Bentley Attorney for Rada Defendants PROOF OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Appeal has been filed electronically with the Court and that the persons on the attached service list designated as "CM/ECF Registered" will be served with same by the Court's CM/ECF system; and that the other persons on the attached service list have been served with a copy of the Notice of Appeal and proposed Order by first class mail on the 22nd day of September, 2006. _/s/___Burton M. Bentley Burton M. Bentley Ryan W. Anderson, Esq. Guttilla & Murphy, PC Attorneys for the Receiver CM/ECF Registered Ren Bidwell 3430 Pacific Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98501 Defendant Pro Se ____

Steve A. Bryant 3618 Mt. Vernon, #A Houston, TX 77006-4238 Co-Counsel for Rada Defendants

Case 2:03-cv-02390-JAT

-3Document 521

Filed 09/21/2006

Page 3 of 3