Landmark Infrastructure Holding Company LLC v. R.E.D. Investments, LLC, 2:19-cv-03170

Landmark obtained a $744,938.85 judgment (including fees/costs) against R.E.D. Investments and Bobby Van Stavern in prior litigation (R.E.D. I); judgment remained unsatisfied.
While R.E.D. I was pending, R.E.D. members Robbie Marley, Debora Johnson, and Elizabeth Ruble formed Davis Hills Farms, LLC; the members are the same for both entities.
R.E.D. transferred two substantial properties (Van Stavern Building and Waterman Building) to Davis Hills; deeds recite only nominal consideration and Marley testified Davis Hills paid nothing.
Davis Hills granted a $400,000 deed of trust to Mark Randolph shortly before trial; Landmark alleges Randolph paid no consideration.
After post-judgment discovery, Davis Hills transferred part of the Waterman Property to third parties (the Siens) and Randolph executed a partial release covering that portion; Landmark alleges these transfers were intended to impede collection on Landmark’s judgment.
Landmark sued Marley for civil conspiracy to fraudulently transfer and encumber R.E.D.’s assets to hinder Landmark’s ability to satisfy its judgment. Marley moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Landmark pleaded a plausible civil-conspiracy claim	Marley and others agreed to fraudulently transfer R.E.D. assets (formation of Davis Hills, transfers without consideration) to impede collection	Marley is merely a member/family relation; allegations are conclusory and insufficient	Denied—allegations plausibly show agreement, acts in furtherance, and damages
Whether Rule 9(b) heightened pleading for conspiracy/fraud was satisfied	Specific facts and exhibits identify transfers, timing, and lack of consideration to show fraudulent intent	Allegations lack particularity as to Marley’s intent and role	Denied—court finds complaint and incorporated exhibits plead fraud-related conduct with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b)
Whether Marley can be held personally liable for actions of R.E.D. / Davis Hills	Marley personally signed/authorized transfers and participated in the scheme	Marley argued membership alone cannot impose personal liability	Denied—personal participation in transfers can support liability despite membership in entities
Whether Landmark alleged actionable fraudulent transfers under Missouri law	Landmark alleged creditor status, insolvency, transfers without consideration, and intent to hinder creditors	Defendants contended allegations insufficient to meet statutory elements	Court concluded allegations plausibly plead elements of fraudulent transfer claims

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) (accept well-pleaded factual allegations at motion to dismiss)
Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy claim requires specific facts showing a meeting of the minds)
Western Blue Print Co., LLC v. Roberts, 367 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. banc 2012) (elements of civil conspiracy under Missouri law)
United States ex rel. Costner v. United States, 317 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2003) (Rule 9(b) particularity standard and purpose to enable a defendant to respond specifically)