Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Substantive rulingFiled Feb. 8, 2023

TMCO, Ltd v. Brodsky

Judge
Alex Tse
Docket
3:20-cv-09300
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In TMCO, Ltd. v. Brodsky, Judge Tse denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion because factual disputes require a jury trial.

Who this affects

TMCO, LTD and the defendants, including Mikhail and Tatyana Brodsky, remain involved in a case that the court set for jury trial.

What happened

TMCO, Ltd. sued Mikhail Brodsky and other defendants concerning the transfer of the Lombard property and TMCO’s efforts to collect a judgment.

The court identified factual disputes about whether Alex Feerer transferred the property with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud TMCO; whether the Brodskys accepted it in good faith; and whether they paid reasonably equivalent value.

Judge Alex Tse denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because these disputes must be decided by a jury. The case was set to proceed to trial on April 17, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
TMCO, Ltd v. Brodsky · No. 3:20-cv-09300
Judge
Alex Tse
Date
Feb. 8, 2023

Background

TMCO, LTD brought claims concerning the transfer of the Lombard property from Alex Feerer to Mikhail and Tatyana Brodsky. TMCO alleged that the transfer affected its efforts to collect a judgment.

Issues

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to resolve a case without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about facts that matter to the outcome. The court found genuine disputes about three issues:

  1. Whether Feerer transferred the Lombard property with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud TMCO in its judgment-collection efforts, under California Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(1).
  2. Whether the Brodskys took the property in good faith, under California Civil Code § 3439.08(a).
  3. Whether the Brodskys paid Feerer reasonably equivalent value for the property, under California Civil Code §§ 3439.08(a) and 3439.05(a).

Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It held that the factual disputes must be presented to a jury. The court stated that the case would proceed to trial on April 17, 2023, and said it would issue a separate order addressing pretrial deadlines and trial guidelines.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.