Alex D. Moglia, in his capacity as Court-appointed Receiver v. Jeremy Israelsen; Kanokwan Israelsen; Michael Israelsen; Alexandria Gomez; Eleonore Hodgkinson; and Miguel Izzra

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Utah grants Receiver Alex D. Moglia’s motion for default judgment against Miguel Izzra. The court concludes that it has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and that the complaint adequately alleges claims under Utah’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and for unjust enrichment concerning a $15,000 transfer. The court awards the Receiver $15,000 plus 5% prejudgment interest, for a total of $16,138.36.

Holdings

1. The court had supplemental subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the ancillary action formed part of the same case or controversy as the original action, which was within the court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
2. The court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Izzra because the complaint alleged that he was domiciled in Utah, making him subject to general jurisdiction there.
3. The receiver adequately stated a claim under Utah Code § 25-6-202(1)(a) because the complaint alleged that the transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor.
4. The receiver adequately stated a claim under Utah Code § 25-6-203 because the complaint alleged that the debtor transferred funds without receiving reasonably equivalent value while insolvent.
5. The receiver adequately stated an unjust-enrichment claim because the allegations showed that Izzra received a benefit, knew of the benefit, and would be unjustly enriched by retaining money originating from the QIR Entities.
6. Default judgment was warranted because the court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction and the complaint adequately stated claims for relief; the receiver was also entitled to five-percent annual prejudgment interest.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the ancillary action under supplemental jurisdiction.
2. Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Defendant Miguel Izzra.
3. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded claims under Utah's Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and for unjust enrichment so as to warrant default judgment.
4. Whether the receiver was entitled to prejudgment interest on the fraudulent-transfer recovery.

Disposition

other