Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Windham v. Deucher

United States District Court, D. Utah

October 17, 2018

MARIA E. WINDHAM, as Receiver for MARQUIS PROPERTIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT DEUCHER, an individual, JULIE DEUCHER, an individual, BRIAN NIXON, an individual, AMANDA NIXON, an individual, DARCY WOLLASTON, an individual, STEVE WOLLASTON, an individual, and DOES 1-5, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT AMANDA NIXON'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          TED STEWART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Amanda Nixon's Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This action is brought by Plaintiff as Receiver for Marquis Properties, LLC and the assets of the Marquis Properties Receivership Estate. Plaintiff alleges that Chad Roger Deucher operated a Ponzi scheme through Marquis Properties from 2010 to 2016. This action is one of many “claw back” actions seeking to recover monetary payments and other assets Chad Deucher fraudulently caused Marquis Properties to transfer to Defendants, who are members of Chad Deucher's family.

         Defendant Brian Nixon is Chad Deucher's brother-in-law and is alleged to have been an insider of Marquis Property and assisted Chad Deucher in operating the Ponzi scheme. Defendant Amanda Nixon is, or at all relevant times was, married to Defendant Brian Nixon.

         Plaintiff alleges that Chad Deucher caused transfers of payments to be made directly or indirectly to Defendants from Marquis Properties' bank accounts where the funds of victim investors were deposited. Plaintiff further alleges that Chad Deucher transferred certain assets directly or indirectly to Defendants that were obtained from the fraud he perpetuated on investors. Plaintiff alleges that Chad Deucher made these transfers in furtherance of his fraud and for fraudulent purposes.

         More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Chad Deucher caused Marquis Properties to transfer payments and assets to Brian Nixon as compensation for activities of Defendants that enticed victim investors into the Ponzi scheme. In total, Brian Nixon was the recipient and/or beneficiary of at least $548, 285 in commissions and other compensation payments from Marquis Properties, all of which Plaintiff alleges constitute fraudulent transfers.

         With respect to Defendant Amanda Nixon, Plaintiff alleges that she was a beneficiary of some or all of the payments made by Marquis Properties to Brian Nixon. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that Brian Nixon transferred some or all of the fraudulently-obtained assets to Amanda Nixon without receipt of reasonably equivalent value paid in good faith.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Rule 8 serves the vital purpose of enabling the court and defendants to know what claims are being asserted and to be able to respond to those claims.”[1]

         To meet this requirement, Plaintiff must provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[2] “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'”[3]

         As the Court in Iqbal stated,

only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will . . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. But where the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.