SOLID INCOME LIMITED v. ENERGYINVEST LLC

Background

The order addresses two related fraudulent-transfer actions: Solid Income Limited v. EnergyInvest LLC, Case No. 24-cv-09422-HSG, and Solid Income Limited, et al. v. American HomeEnergy LLC, et al., Case No. 24-cv-09424-HSG. The plaintiffs seek to recover amounts connected to two earlier matters involving Thomas Enzendorfer.

According to the complaints, AEC Yield provided more than ten million dollars to Enzendorfer in January 2018. Enzendorfer allegedly transferred those assets to shell companies in violation of his agreement with AEC Yield. A judgment for $22,111,363.46 was entered for AEC Yield in the Eastern District of New York, and AEC Yield allegedly assigned its interest in that judgment to Solid Income and CCY III.

In December 2020, Solid Income allegedly loaned $1,750,000 to Enzendorfer and EnergyInvest LLC. After Enzendorfer allegedly transferred the loan proceeds to shell entities, the parties entered arbitration. On January 10, 2024, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York confirmed an arbitration award of $2,152,594.79 for Solid Income and entered judgment.

The plaintiffs asserted a common-law fraudulent-transfer claim under California law and claims under California Civil Code section 3439.04(a)(1) and (a)(2), which address actual and constructive fraudulent transfers. Defendants moved to dismiss all three claims.

Requests for Judicial Notice

Defendants asked the court to take judicial notice of facts and documents concerning the earlier litigation. Judicial notice allows a court to accept certain facts without requiring formal proof when those facts are not reasonably disputable. The court denied the requests because defendants provided minimal context and did not explain why the materials qualified for judicial notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Motions to Dismiss

Defendants first challenged subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). They argued that Solid Income and CCY III were not legitimate entities or that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they were not proper assignees of the Eastern District of New York judgment. The plaintiffs submitted certificates of good standing from the Cayman Islands Registry of Companies. The court found that the plaintiffs had supplied competent proof that Solid Income Limited and CCY III were actual Cayman Islands entities. The court declined to decide whether California’s judgment-enforcement assignment requirements applied to these California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act claims, finding that defendants had not provided definitive legal authority supporting their position. The court therefore declined to dismiss on those grounds, while noting that defendants could raise jurisdictional issues again if new evidence emerged.

Defendants also argued that the initial transfers were not fraudulent and that the claims were outside the statute of limitations. The court held that both arguments depended on disputed facts and fact-intensive inquiries that were not appropriate to resolve on a motion to dismiss. The court also declined to consider materials outside the complaints, including a loan agreement and representations by Patric Wisard, in deciding those issues.

Defendants next argued that American Home Energy Inc. and EnergyInvest LLC should be dismissed because the plaintiffs could not obtain a second monetary judgment for the same debt. The court recognized that a creditor generally cannot recover duplicative damages for the same judgment, but may seek separate damages caused by post-judgment conduct intended to hinder, delay, or defraud collection. The court found that punitive damages were a distinct form of relief and that it was premature to decide whether the requested compensatory damages would create an improper double recovery. The court deferred that issue until further factual development.

Finally, defendants argued that the complaints did not satisfy the plausibility and particularity requirements for fraud claims. The court disagreed. It found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged the specific loans, the parties to those loans, the loan dates and amounts, the assets transferred, and allegations that the transfers were made to hinder or delay creditors, without reasonably equivalent value. The court concluded that the allegations sufficiently stated claims under California Civil Code section 3439.04(a)(1) and (a)(2), and therefore also declined to dismiss the common-law fraudulent-transfer claim.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss in both related cases. It also denied defendants’ requests for judicial notice. The court set a case-management conference for September 23, 2025, and directed the parties to file a joint case-management statement by September 16, 2025. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.