
    KINGSLEY CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; Bruce Paine Kingsley Md Ira Rollover, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brian Nelson SLY; Brian Sly and Company, Inc., a California corporation, successor in interest to Brian Sly and Company; Brian Sly and Company, a California sole proprietorship; Charles J. Antonucci, Sr.; Thomas J. Bean; Thomas Cunningham; Heather D. Cunningham; Accredited Investor Resources, LLC; Wilbur Anthony Huff; Sherri Huff, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-15325
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 17, 2016 San Francisco, California
    Filed January 05, 2017
    Paul A. Conant, Attorney, Conant Law Firm, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    John J. Egbert, Jennings Strouss & Salmon, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Daniel T. Bernhard, Attorney, Freeland Cooper & Foreman, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Brian Nelson Sly, Brian Sly and Company, Inc., Brian Sly and Company
    Andre H. Merrett, Esquire, Attorney, Quarles & Brady LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Brian Laird, Attorney, Laird Law Firm, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Thomas Cunningham
    Gregory B. Iannelli, Sean Keenan McEl-enney, Esquire, Attorney, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Coree Elizabeth Neu-meyer, Quarles &' Brady LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Accredited Investor Resources, LLC
    Wilbur Anthony Huff, Pro Se
    Sherri Huff, Pro Se
    Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Appellants Kingsley Capital Management, LLC and Bruce Paine Kingsley MD IRA Rollover (collectively, Kingsley) challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for new trial and/or motion to alter or amend judgment premised on the jury’s verdict that Appellee Brian Sly was liable for securities fraud under Arizona law, but awarding no damages. Kingsley contends that the district court erred in holding that they could not seek a new trial because they failed to challenge the verdict prior to discharge of the jury.

Although Kingsley was afforded “the opportunity to object before the jury was dismissed,” Kingsley “chose not to raise any objections to the jury’s verdict.” Home Indem. Co. v. Lane Powell Moss & Miller, 43 F.3d 1322, 1331 (9th Cir. 1995). “This constituted a waiver of the objection on appeal.” Id.; see also Philippine Nat’l Oil Co. v. Garrett Corp., 724 F.2d 803, 806 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that “a party that failed to object to a no damages verdict at the time it was read waived any future objections to the form of the verdict”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     