Reorganized Human Dynamics Corp. v. Human Dynamics Captive Management (In Re Human Dynamics Corp.)

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 11 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In the Matter of: HUMAN DYNAMICS No. 12-17086
CORPORATION,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00509-DGC
Debtor,
MEMORANDUM*
REORGANIZED HUMAN DYNAMICS
CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HUMAN DYNAMICS CAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT, a Nevada corporation;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
In the Matter of: HUMAN DYNAMICS No. 12-17207
CORPORATION,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00509-DGC
Debtor,
REORGANIZED HUMAN DYNAMICS
CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HUMAN DYNAMICS CAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT, a Nevada corporation;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
These are cross-appeals from the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the reorganized debtor, and the
bankruptcy court’s orders extending appellants’ time to appeal. The bankruptcy
court entered judgment against defendants G. Douglas Anderton, Edward Kyle
Anderton, and PC General Agency after finding, among other things, that G.
Douglas Anderton had fraudulently caused the transfer of funds belonging to the
pre-petition debtor, and that Edward Anderton and PC General Agency were
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 12-17086
transferees of the funds. We review the bankruptcy court’s decision independent
of the decision of the district court, under a clear error standard as to factual
findings, and we affirm. See Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d
1502, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).
The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Douglas Anderton,
Edward Kyle Anderton, and PC General Agency were liable to the reorganized
debtor on account of transfers caused by Douglas Anderton. See Retz v. Samson
(In re Retz), 606 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A court’s factual determination
is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record.”); Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[I]f the
district court’s findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety,
the appellate court cannot reverse even if it is convinced it would have found
differently.”); see also Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574
(1985) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s
choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”). The bankruptcy court’s
determinations were supported by the record, including the undisputed facts
contained in the parties’ joint pre-trial statement, the debtor’s and its parent’s tax
returns, and the testimony taken during the bankruptcy court’s four-day bench trial.
3 12-17086
The bankruptcy court also did not abuse its discretion in extending
appellants’ time to file their notice of appeal, because the record supported a
determination that counsel’s neglect was excusable. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.
Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993).
AFFIRMED.
4 12-17086