-SS David A. Gill v. Bruce F. Friedman et al, No. 2:2010cv01554 - Document 308 (C.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Manuel L. Real, in favor of David A. Gill against Bruce F. Friedman. The Receiver is entitled to damages in the amount of $37,354,445.80 from Defendant Bruce Friedman. It is further ORDERED that, since there is no just reason for delay, this JUDGMENT is to be entered forthwith as a Final Judgment. (pj)

Download PDF
-SS David A. Gill v. Bruce F. Friedman et al Doc. 308 6 MARC M. SELTZER (54534) mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com STEPHEN E. MORRISSEY (187865) smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com BRYAN J.E. CAFORIO (261265) bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 7 Attorneys for David A. Gill, Receiver 1 2 3 4 5 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 DAVID A GILL, solely in his capacity as Permanent Receiver in the matter of 13 Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Diversified Lending Group, Inc.; Applied 14 Equities, Inc.; Scott Siemers and Tina M. Placourakis, U.S.D.C. Case No. CV 0915 01533-R-SS, 12 16 17 18 vs. Case No. 10-CV-01554-R (SSx) FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST BRUCE FRIEDMAN Plaintiff, BRUCE F. FRIEDMAN, an individual, et al., Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1648679v1/011870 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Court, having considered the Application for Final Judgment Against 2 Defendant Bruce Friedman (“the Application”) submitted by David A. Gill (“the 3 Receiver”), the exhibits and declarations submitted in support of the Application, 4 the other documents on file, and the applicable law, has concluded that the 5 Receiver’s Application shall be granted in its entirety. 6 7 The Receiver has complied with all the procedural requirements of Federal 8 Rule of Civil Procedure 55 and Local Rule 55-1. Additionally, the Court has 9 considered the seven factors enumerated in Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471- 10 72 (9th Cir. 1986), and determined that granting a default judgment against 11 Defendant Friedman is appropriate. 12 13 While policy generally favors decisions on the merits, Defendant Friedman’s 14 failure to Answer the Complaint renders such a decision impossible. There appears 15 to be no likelihood of dispute concerning the material facts of this case, and 16 Defendant Friedman’s default is not due to excusable neglect. 17 18 Furthermore, the Court finds there is no just reason to delay entry of Final 19 Judgment against Bruce Friedman. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 54(b). As the principal of 20 Diversified Lending Group, Inc., and the primary wrongdoer in this Action, Mr. 21 Friedman is uniquely positioned in this litigation. The claims against him, and any 22 possible defenses thereto, do not depend on resolution of the Receiver’s claims 23 against any other defendant. Conversely, the Receivership Estate will immediately 24 benefit from a Final Judgment against Mr. Friedman at this time. 25 26 The factual allegations from the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) are taken 27 as true. See Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F. 2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977). The 28 Court has considered those factual allegations in the FAC, along with the evidence 1648679v1/0118702 2 1 submitted in support of the Receiver’s Application, including a declaration and 2 exhibit from the Receiver’s accountant, and the Court finds that Mr. Friedman is 3 liable on the fraudulent transfer claims in the amount of $37,354,445.80. 4 5 6 It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND, DECREED that Defendant Bruce Friedman is liable on the following claims: 7 (1) Claim 9 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers; 8 (2) Claim 10 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers; 9 (3) Claim 11 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers; and 10 (4) Claim 12 for avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers. 11 The Receiver is entitled to damages in the amount of $37,354,445.80 from 12 Defendant Bruce Friedman. 13 14 15 It is further ORDERED that, since there is no just reason for delay, this JUDGMENT is to be entered forthwith as a Final Judgment. 16 17 Dated: August 30, 2011 _______________________ MANUEL L. REAL U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1648679v1/0118703 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.