KINGSLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT V. BRIAN SLY, No. 14-15325 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KINGSLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; BRUCE PAINE KINGSLEY MD IRA ROLLOVER, Plaintiffs - Appellants, FILED JAN 05 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-15325 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02243-NVW 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
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.
