KINGSLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company v. Brian Nelson Sly

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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,
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.
No. 14-15325
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02243-NVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
JAN 05 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

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

-- 2 of 2 --