MOHAMED POONJA V. TERI NGUYEN, No. 13-16196 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 23 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMED POONJA, Trustee, Plaintiff - Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-16196 D.C. No. 4:12-cv-05905-CW v. MEMORANDUM * TERI H. NGUYEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia Wilken, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 16, 2015** San Francisco, California Before: CHRISTEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and LEMELLE,*** District Judge. Mohamed Poonja, who is the chapter 7 trustee for First Financial Lender, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. initiated an adversary proceeding against Teri Nguyen, who is the President and sole shareholder of First Financial. The adversary proceeding sought to recover an allegedly fraudulent transfer. The bankruptcy court, following a trial, entered judgment in favor of Poonja. We affirm. Even assuming that the district court erred in imposing a sanction, Nguyen was not prejudiced and any error was thus harmless. Poonja’s statement of facts, which the bankruptcy court adopted, was substantially similar to those submitted by Nguyen. Moreover, the bankruptcy court’s sanction did not affect which exhibits were admitted into evidence. See Ford v. Alfaro, 785 F.2d 835, 839-40 (9th Cir. 1986). Nguyen waived the issue of insolvency by stipulating to that effect on multiple occasions in pretrial filings and in her trial brief. See CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1999). Because Nguyen conceded the issue of the debtor’s insolvency, she could not have suffered any prejudice from admission of Poonja’s expert’s report even if that report had contained inadmissible hearsay, as the expert report was relevant only to the issue of insolvency. Finally, the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the cancelled debt. The debtor was insolvent, so the value of Nguyen’s equity interest in the debtor could not have been equivalent to the transferred property. AFFIRMED.
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.
