United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER CERTIFIYING QUESTIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
to Rule 5 of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure, this
Court seeks guidance from and respectfully certifies to the
Supreme Court of Nevada the following questions of law that
may be determinative of matters before this Court and as to
which there is no clearly controlling precedent in the
decisions of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals of Nevada:
1. May a judgment creditor bring a claim for alter ego to
make a third party liable on the judgment or is alter ego a
2. Does alter ego apply to limited liability companies?
3. Does alter ego apply to partnerships?
4. Does alter ego apply to trusts?
5. Does alter ego apply to spendthrift trusts?
6. Is an alter ego of a judgment debtor a "debtor"
under Nevada's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act?
7. Is a transfer between alter egos or between the judgment
debtor and an alter ego a "transfer" under
Nevada's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act?
TransFirst Group, Inc.; TransFirst Third Party Sales, LLC;
and Payment Resources International, LLC
("TransFirst") obtained a judgment in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
against defendant Dominic J. Magliarditi based on fraud
claims for which approximately $4 million remains
unpaid. ECF No. 7-1 at 2, 5, 11; Pis.' Hrg.
Exs. 1-3; ECF No. 105 at 17. TransFirst has been attempting
to collect ever since, with little success. Following
post-judgment collection efforts, TransFirst initiated this
lawsuit in Texas against Dominic, his wife (Francine
Magliarditi), and various entities associated with the
Magliarditis, alleging that the entities are Dominic's
alter egos and thus are liable on the judgment. TransFirst
also asserts fraudulent transfer claims, alleging that
transfers to and between the entities and to Francine were
this case was pending in Texas, TransFirst moved for a
temporary restraining order ("TRO") precluding the
defendants from transferring, concealing, or otherwise
disposing of their assets. ECF No. 6. The Texas court granted
that motion as to some defendants but denied it without
prejudice as to others because the court concluded it lacked
jurisdiction over those defendants. ECF Nos. 6, 33. In ruling
on the TRO motion, the court stated Dominic had engaged in
"postjudgment discovery abuses, as evidenced by
Magistrate Judge Paul Stickney's order sanctioning him .
. . ." ECF No. 33 at 9. The Texas court then transferred
the action to this court. ECF Nos. 36, 37.
the case was transferred, I reinstated the TRO, expanded it
to apply to all the defendants, and set a hearing on the
motion for preliminary injunction. ECF Nos. 53, 54. In the
meantime, TransFirst filed a second amended complaint, again
asserting claims for alter ego, fraudulent transfer, and
unjust enrichment. ECF No. 75. The parties submitted their
briefs and voluminous supporting exhibits in relation to the
motion for a preliminary injunction. I held a hearing on May
19, 2017, at which no live witnesses testified.
granted TransFirst's motion for a preliminary injunction.
ECF No. 109. In doing so, I made several predictions about
Nevada law which have become the subject of a motion for
reconsideration. In light of the Supreme Court of
Nevada's recent decision in Klabacka v. Nelson,394 P.3d 940 (Nev. 2017) (en banc), I granted reconsideration