Navajo Health Foundationsage Memorial Hospital Inc V Kory Razaghi Et

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• Whether the plaintiff has a valid unjust enrichment claim given that the settlement money allegedly belonged to the plaintiff and was obtained by Ahmad through fraud before being impermissibly transferred to defendants.
• Whether the 2025 Ahmad-Kory settlement violated Nevada's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) under NRS Chapter 112, specifically whether the transfer was made with actual intent to defraud creditors or without reasonably equivalent value.
• Whether the plaintiff's conversion claim survives dismissal given that the plaintiff alleged an identifiable amount was converted and that specific sums of money may support a conversion claim.
• Whether the money had and received claim is duplicative of the unjust enrichment claim and should be dismissed as such.
• Whether the plaintiff's well-pled fraudulent transfer claim provides sufficient basis for a civil conspiracy claim alleging that Kory, Attentus, Ahmad, and RDC conspired to defraud Ahmad's and RDC's creditors.

Holdings

• The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss all other claims including fraudulent transfers under Nevada law, conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfers, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The plaintiff has sufficiently pled these claims and they will continue to proceed.
• The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for money had and received as duplicative of the unjust enrichment claim, without prejudice. The plaintiff may seek leave to amend if it can allege additional facts and identify legal authority demonstrating the claim is not wholly duplicative and may properly proceed as a distinct theory of recovery.

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The creditor bears the burden of proof to establish that a fraudulent transfer occurred under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. The court must consider various factors listed in NRS 112.180(2) to determine actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, including whether the transfer was to an insider, concealment, insolvency, and whether consideration received was reasonably equivalent to the asset transferred.
• Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter accepted as true to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The pleading must give fair notice of a legally cognizable claim and cannot rely solely on labels and conclusions. Leave to amend should be granted unless deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
• Civil conspiracy requires an agreement by two or more persons who intend to accomplish an unlawful objective for the purpose of harming another through concerted action resulting in damages. Fraudulent transfers can form the basis for a civil conspiracy claim. The court found plaintiff's well-pled fraudulent transfer claim provides the basis for the civil conspiracy claim, and defendants were recipients of the fraudulent transfer, not nontransferees subject to accessory liability limits.
• Money had and received is a common law variation of unjust enrichment that can be maintained whenever one person has received possession of another's money which they ought in equity to pay over. The court dismissed this claim as duplicative of the unjust enrichment claim, but without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to seek leave to amend if it can allege additional facts demonstrating the claim is not wholly duplicative.
• Unjust enrichment occurs when a plaintiff confers a benefit on a defendant, the defendant appreciates such benefit, and there is acceptance and retention by the defendant under circumstances where it would be inequitable to retain the benefit without payment. The court found the unjust enrichment claim may continue as whether settlement funds were acquired by fraud is a question of fact.
• Conversion requires a defendant to commit a distinct act of dominion wrongfully exerted over plaintiff's personal property in denial of plaintiff's title or rights. Money can be the subject of conversion where it is identifiable, such as being set aside in a separate account or separately earmarked. The court allowed the conversion claim to continue as it is a question of fact whether settlement funds were obtained by fraud and converted.

Precedent Name

• Ashcroft v. Iqbal
• United States v. McGee
• Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc.
• Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
• NCP Bayou 2, LLC v. Medici
• Amatrone v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.
• Cadle Co. v. Woods & Erickson, LLP
• Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc.

Cited Statute

• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 112, Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2)

Judge Name

Passage Text

• IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to the claim for money had and received and DENIED as to all other claims. Plaintiff has 21 days to seek leave to amend and must attach its proposed amended complaint.
• Here, the unjust enrichment and money had and received claims are duplicative. While the elements to the claims are not exactly the same, they are substantially similar, the relief sought, and parties or privies to the action are the same. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed as duplicative.
• Accordingly, plaintiff has sufficiently pled its NRS 112.190 claim and it will continue.

Damages / Relief Type