Case:07-01236-HRT Doc#:55 Filed:04/15/08 Entered:04/15/08 14:56:23 Page1 of 2

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
In re: )
)
CAMERON ALDEN MOORE, ) Bankruptcy Case No. 06-19807-HRT
Debtor. ) Chapter 7
____________________________________)
)
MICHELANGELO DELFINO )
and MARY E. DAY, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Adversary Proceeding No. 07-1236 HRT
)
CAMERON ALDEN MOORE, )
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

ORDER (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND AND

(2) AFFIRMING THIS COURT’S ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend
and Set Aside Order of March 18, 2008 (docket #41) [the “Motion”]. The Court has also
considered the pleadings filed since March 19, 2008, including Defendant’s Verified Response to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #53) [the “Response”], and Plaintiffs’ Reply to
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket #54) [the “Reply”].

On March 20, 2008, in response to the Defendant’s Motion, this Court permitted the
Defendant to file his Response out of time and held the following in abeyance:

a. March 18, 2008, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(docket #36);
b. March 18, 2008, Judgment (docket #37); and
c. March 19, 2008, Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend and Set Aside Order of
March 18, 2008 (docket #41).

After the Court’s review and consideration of Defendant’s Response, the Court finds that
the Defendant’s arguments do not alter the Court’s analysis and its conclusion that Plaintiff is
entitled to summary judgment on the basis of collateral estoppel. The Court granted the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue
preclusion, supported by the prior judgment entered against the Defendant and in favor of the
Plaintiffs in the Superior Court of California. Consistent with California law on issue preclusion,
the Plaintiffs established: (1) the issues sought to be precluded from litigation in this adversary
proceeding are identical to that litigated in the Superior Court of California, (2) the issues were
actually litigated in the former proceeding at the trial on April 18, 2005, (3) the issues were
necessarily decided in the Superior Court of California, (4) the decision in the Superior Court of
California was final and on the merits, and (5) the parties in the Superior Court of California and
Case:07-01236-HRT Doc#:55 Filed:04/15/08 Entered:04/15/08 14:56:23 Page2 of 2

this adversary proceeding are the same. In re Turner, 204 B.R. 988, 992 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1997).
See also In re Khaligh, 338 B.R. 817, 830-831 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006).

Initially, Defendant argues that summary judgment is improper because there are
disputed facts at issue. But the facts he argues are disputed relate to the award of damages
embodied in the prior state court judgment. Because the requirements of issue preclusion have
been satisfied, this Court is not permitted to second guess the damages awarded by the Superior
Court of California. The transcript of the April 18, 2005, trial shows that the judge considered
“general damages for emotional distress as well as punitive damages for [Moore’s] conduct” and
actual costs. Exhibit 4, Transcript page 26-27 and 30 of 40.

Defendant’s second argument is that collateral estoppel does not apply in this case
because the merits of Plaintiff’s case were never actually litigated in the state court. Indeed, in
some jurisdictions, default judgments are not entitled to collateral estoppel effect. However, in
this Court’s original Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment it pointed out
that the Court must apply California law to this matter and that California law does give
preclusive effect to proceedings where one of the parties defaults. In the California case, the
Superior Court conducted a trial and the Defendant did not appear. The Superior Court heard
sworn testimony of the Plaintiffs, admitted exhibits into evidence, and made necessary findings
to enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs.

Thus, the arguments that Defendant advances in his late-filed Response are matters that
were fully considered by this Court in its original order. Consequently, the Court affirms its
March 18, 2008, Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment concluding that the
findings of the Superior Court of the State of California must be given preclusive effect by this
Court and the Defendant is collaterally estopped from re-litigating those matters in this adversary
proceeding.

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, it is

ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend and Set Aside Order of
March 18, 2008 (docket #41) is DENIED.

FURTHER ORDERED that the Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (docket #36) and Judgment (docket #37) are no longer held in abeyance.
15th
DATED this ____ day of April, 2008.

BY THE COURT:

______________________________
Howard R. Tallman, Chief Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court