Kingsley Capital Management v. Brian Sly , 672 F. App'x 752 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          JAN 05 2017
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    KINGSLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,                     No. 14-15325
    LLC, an Arizona limited liability
    company; BRUCE PAINE KINGSLEY                    D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02243-NVW
    MD IRA ROLLOVER,
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,           MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    BRIAN NELSON SLY; BRIAN SLY
    AND COMPANY, INC., a California
    corporation, successor in interest to Brian
    Sly and Company; BRIAN SLY AND
    COMPANY, a California sole
    proprietorship; CHARLES J.
    ANTONUCCI, Sr.; THOMAS J. BEAN;
    THOMAS CUNNINGHAM; HEATHER
    D. CUNNINGHAM; ACCREDITED
    INVESTOR RESOURCES, LLC;
    WILBUR ANTHONY HUFF; SHERRI
    HUFF,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Argued and Submitted March 17, 2016
    San Francisco, California
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Appellants Kingsley Capital Management, LLC and Bruce Paine Kingsley
    MD IRA Rollover (collectively, Kingsley) challenge the district court’s denial of
    their motion for new trial and/or motion to alter or amend judgment premised on
    the jury’s verdict that Appellee Brian Sly was liable for securities fraud under
    Arizona law, but awarding no damages. Kingsley contends that the district court
    erred in holding that they could not seek a new trial because they failed to
    challenge the verdict prior to discharge of the jury.
    Although Kingsley was afforded “the opportunity to object before the jury
    was dismissed,” Kingsley “chose not to raise any objections to the jury’s verdict.”
    Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 
    43 F.3d 1322
    , 1331 (9th Cir.
    1995). “This constituted a waiver of the objection on appeal.” Id.; see also
    Philippine Nat’l Oil Co. v. Garrett Corp., 
    724 F.2d 803
    , 806 (9th Cir. 1984)
    (explaining that “a party that failed to object to a no damages verdict at the time it
    was read waived any future objections to the form of the verdict”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15325

Citation Numbers: 672 F. App'x 752

Filed Date: 1/5/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023