{Converted to html. The PDF is the
controlling document. JM}
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 1 of 11
Jeffrey
L. Hartman, Esq., #1607
HARTMAN
& HARTMAN
Telephone:
(775) 324-2800
Facsimile:
(775) 324-1818
E-mail:
notices@bankruptcyreno.com
E-Filed
7/28/17
Attorney
for Patrick Canet, Foreign Representative
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CASE
NO. N-16-50644-BTB
CHAPTER
15
Adv. No. 17-05016
PATRICK CANET’S ANSWER,
PATRICK CANET COUNTERCLAIMS AND CROSS CLAIMS
IN
RE:
JAZI
GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor in a
Foreign Proceeding.
PATRICK
CANET,
Foreign
Representative.
____________________________________________
FRED
SARI AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T.
KOROGHLI AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST
V.
JED
MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN, and all other interest parties claiming an
interest in real properties described in this action
____________________________________________
PATRICK
CANET
V.
FRED
SADRI INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE STAR LIVING TRUST AND
RAY KOROGHLI INDIVIDUALLY, AND RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI AS
MANAGING TRUSTEES OF THE KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST
____________________________________________
PATRICK
CANET
V.
JED
MARGOLIN
____________________________________________
-1-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 2 of 11
Patrick Canet,
foreign representative in this proceeding, hereby answers the Complaint For
Quiet Title And Declaratory Relief and files his Counterclaims against Plaintiffs Fred Sadri individually and in his
capacity as Trustee of the Star Living Trust and Ray Koroghli
individually, and Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi Thay Koroghli
as Managing Trustees of the Koroghli Management
Trust. As and for his Answer to the Complaint Canet
responds as follows:
1.
Canet admits the allegations in ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8 and 9 of the Complaint.
2. Canet
admits the allegations in ¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, in that documents recorded or filed in
the public record speak for themselves.
3.
Canet neither admits nor denies the allegations in ¶¶
32 and 33 as they state legal conclusions.
4. Canet
is without information as to whether Plaintiffs received notices and therefor denies the allegations in ¶¶ 34, 35, 36 and 37.
5.
Canet neither admits nor denies the allegations in ¶¶
38 and 39 as they state legal conclusions.
6.
Canet denies the allegation in ¶ 40.
7.
Canet admits the allegations in ¶ 41.
8.
Canet is without information as to the allegation in
¶42 and therefor denies the same.
9.
Canet admits the allegations in ¶¶ 43, 44, 45, 46 and
47.
10. As
to the allegations in ¶ 48, Canet repeats and
re-alleges his answers in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
11.
Canet admits the allegations in ¶¶ 49, 50, 1, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57 and 58.
12. As to the allegations in ¶
59, Canet admits that Plaintiffs each own a one-third
undivided interest in the Property with Canet. Canet denies any remaining allegation in ¶59.
13.
Canet denies the allegation in ¶60.
14.
Canet admits the allegation in ¶ 61.
-2-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 3 of 11
15.
Canet is without information and belief as to the
allegation in ¶ 62 and therefore denies the same.
16. As
to the allegations in ¶ 63, Canet repeats and
re-alleges his answers in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
17.
As to the allegations in ¶ 64, Canets
that he claims an interest in the Property adverse to Plaintiffs.
18.
Canet admits the allegations in ¶¶ 65, 66, 67 and 68.
19. Canet
admits the allegation in ¶ 69 insofar as he may be required to pay a prorata portion of taxes on the Property in question, i.e.,
parcels 2, 4 and 8 as identified in ¶1 of the Complaint. Canet
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that no insurance or homeowner’s
association dues are accruing.
20.
Canet is without information and belief as to the
allegation in ¶ 70 and therefore denies the same.
21. As
to the allegations in ¶ 71, Canet repeats and
re-alleges his answers in the previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
22.
Canet admits the allegations in ¶¶ 72 and 73.
23.
Canet is without information and belief as to the
allegation in ¶ 74 and therefore denies the same.
24.
Canet denies the allegation in ¶ 75.
25. As to the allegations in ¶
76, Canet admits that Plaintiffs will have suffered
damages if Margolin is allowed to retain his claimed
interest in the Property. Canet denies the
allegations as they relate to him.
25.
Canet denies the allegation in ¶ 77.
26.
Canet is without information and belief as to the
allegation in ¶ 78 and therefore denies the same.
-3-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 4 of 11
As and for his counterclaim
against Fred Sadri, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Star
Living Trust, and Ray Koroghli, individually, and Ray
Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli as Managing Trustees of the Koroghli
Management Trust, Canet alleges as follows.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
27.
Canet is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that Sadri and Koroghli are residents of
28. The Court has jurisdiction
over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and 1334(b). This
is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A),
(C) and (O). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
29. On
or about June 7, 2008, Zandian, Sadri individually
and in his capacity as Trustee of the Star Living Trust, and Ray Koroghli, individually (collectively “the Parties”),
entered into a Settlement And Mutual Release Agreement resolving certain
disputes between and among them (“Settlement Agreement”). The Parties
stipulated that the Settlement Agreement was a final resolution of litigation
in case no. A511131 in the Eight Judicial District Court.
The Settlement Agreement is appended to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit 6.
30. Separate and apart from the
Property interests identified in ¶ 1 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Settlement
Agreement addressed two additional categories of assets. Section 2.2 dealt with
the Parties’ ownership interest in an entity referred to as Big Spring Ranch,
LLC (“
31. Section 2.3 of the
Settlement Agreement addressed matters related to a 320 acre parcel of real
property located in
-4-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 5 of 11
shall be transferred to Zandian,
Sadri and Koroghli as tenants in common in equal shares
Thirty Three and One Third (33.33%) each;”.
32. As of the date of this
Counterclaim Sadri and Koroghli have failed to
execute documents fulfilling their obligations under Section 2.3.1 of the
Settlement Agreement.
33. Canet
is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at the time the Settlement
Agreement was entered into, Big Spring owned assets in addition to the 320
acre parcel in Washoe County, Nevada
and, since that time, Sadri and Koroghli,
individually and together, have transferred one or more other Big Spring assets
(“Other Big Spring Assets”), through mesne transfers,
to other entities owned and/or controlled by them, e.g., Johnson Spring Water
Company, LLC and Wendover Project, LLC, without
having provided notice to Zandian and without
consideration to Zandian.
FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
Quiet
Title/Declaratory Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, NRS 30.010 and NRS 40.010
et seq., vs. Fred Sadri, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the
Star Living Trust, andRay Koroghli,
individually
34.
Canet incorporates the allegations in ¶¶ 27 through
33 as though fully set forth herein.
35. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2201, NRS 30.010 et seq., and NRS 40.010 et seq., this Court has the power and
authority to declare Canet’s rights and interest in
and to APN 076100-19 and to enforce Section 2.3.1 of the Settlement Agreement,
compelling the transfer of title to Zandian as a
tenant as to an undivided one third interest in the 320 acre parcel.
SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
United
Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL), Articles 21, 22 and 23,11 U.S.C. §§ 1520, 1507 and 1521(a), Article L.632-1,
French Commercial Code
36.
Canet incorporates the allegations in ¶¶ 27 through
33 as though fully set forth herein.
37.
Canet is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that after June 7, 2008, Other
-5-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 6 of 11
Big Spring Assets were
transferred by Sadri individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the Star Living
Trust, and Ray Koroghli, through mesne
transfers, the most recent of which was on January 27, 2016, by Water Rights
Quitclaim Deed recorded in Elko County, Nevada as document 707826, to entities
owned and/or controlled by them without notice to Zandian
and without consideration to Zandian, and for less
than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange.
38.
The transfer or transfers alleged in ¶ 37 were made in violation of Section
2.2.2 of the Settlement Agreement.
39.
The transfer or transfers alleged in ¶ 37 were made at a time when Zandian was insolvent.
As to his First Counterclaim, Canet prays for Judgment compelling the transfer of title
to Zandian as a tenant as to an undivided one third
interest in the 320 acre parcel.
As to his Second Counterclaim, Canet prays for Judgment avoiding any transfers of assets
from Big Spring Ranch, LLC after June 7, 2008, as to immediate and all
subsequent transferees.
CROSS CLAIMS
As
and for his Cross Claims against Jed Margolin (“Margolin”), Canet alleges as
follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION
AND VENUE
40.
Canet is informed and believes and thereon alleges
that Margolin is a resident of the State of
41. The Court has jurisdiction over
this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b) and 1334(b). This is a
core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (C)
and (O). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1409. In accordance with LR 7008, Canet consents to entry of a final order or judgment
entered by this Court.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
42.
In December 2009, Margolin filed a civil action in
the Ninth Judicial District
-6-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 7 of 11
(“Carson
City Action”), against Zandian, Optima Technology
Corporation, a
43. In March 2011, a default
judgment was entered against Zandian and Optima in
the
44. Although Zandian filed a general denial to the amended complaint, in
March 2012, that general denial was stricken by the court and a sanctions
motion was granted
against Zandian.
45.
On March 9, 2012, Margolin filed a Notice of Intent To Take Default.
46.
On April 26, 2012, John Peter Lee, Zandian and Optimas’ counsel was granted permission to withdraw.
47. On September 24, 2012, the
court entered a default against the Optima corporations. On October 31, 2012,
the court entered default judgment against the Optima corporations and awarded damages of
$1.4 million.
48. In December 2012, Margolin filed a Motion For
Sanctions against Zandian and in January 2013, the
court granted sanctions in the form of striking Zandian’s
general denial and awarding fees and costs.
49.
On June 24, 2013 default judgment was entered against Zandian
in the3 amount of $1.5 million.
50.
In December 2013, Zandian moved to set aside the
default judgment entered in June 2013. That motion was denied in February 2014.
51.
On March 12, 2014, Zandian filed a Notice of Appeal
to the Nevada Supreme Court.
52.
On August 18, 2014, the court issued its Order regarding a writ of execution.
53.
On October 19, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Zandian’s
appeals numbered 65205 and 65960.
-7-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 8 of 11
54. On January 1, 2016, the
court entered an Order To Show Cause why Zandian should not be held in contempt. On March 3, 2016,
the court entered its Order holding Zandian in
contempt. In February 2016, the court issued a warrant for Zandian’s
arrest.
55.
On May 19, 2016, Canet filed his chapter 15 Petition For Recognition of Foreign Proceeding.
56.
On September 9, 2016 this Court granted the request for recognition of the
foreign proceeding.
57. Upon information and
belief, pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 084-130-07 in
58. Upon information and
belief, on September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property
was recorded in
59. Upon information and
belief, pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 079-150-10 in
60. Upon information and
belief, on September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property
was recorded in
61. Upon information and
belief, pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused in APN 084-040-02 in Washoe County,
(“Parcel APN 084-04002") to be sold on April 3, 2015 by Sheriff’s
62. Upon information and
belief, on September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property
was recorded in
63. Upon information and
belief, pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 079-150-12 in
-8-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 9 of 11
64. Upon information and
belief, on September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution
Of Real Property was recorded in
65. Upon information and
belief, on October 19, 2016, two Sheriff’s Deeds Upon Execution were recorded
in Clark County in favor of Margolin with respect to
APN 071-02-000-005 and APN 071-02-000-005 (“Clark County Parcels”).
FIRST CROSS CLAIM
United
Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL), Articles 21, 22 and 23,11 U.S.C. §§ 1520, 1507 and 1521(a), Article L.632-1,
French Commercial Code
66.
Canet incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 42
through 65 as though fully set forth herein.
67.
The recording of deeds on September 8, 2016 , as
identified in ¶ ¶ 58, 60, 62 and 64, were transfers (“Transfers”), of property
in which Zandian held an interest.
68. The recording of deeds on September
8, 2016, as identified in ¶ ¶ 58, 60, 62 and 64 were Transfers to the detriment
of creditors in the Zandian main proceeding pending
in
69. The recording of deeds on
September 8, 2016, as identified in ¶ ¶ 58,60, 62 and
64 were Transfers which should be avoided by this Court
SECOND CROSS CLAIM
United
Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL), Articles 21, 22 and 23,11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a), 1520(a), 1507 and 1521(a), Article
L.632-1, French Commercial Code
70.
Canet incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 42
through 65 as though fully set forth herein.
71. The recording of the deed
on October 9, 2016, as identified in ¶ 65 was a Transfer of property in which Zandian held an interest in violation of the automatic stay
of § 362(a).
-9-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 10 of 11
As to his First Cross Claim, Canet prays for Judgment avoiding the Transfers in ¶¶ 58,
60, 62 and 64 and expunging the Sheriff’s Deeds as to APN 084-130-07, APN
079-15010, APN 084-040-02 and APN 079-150-12.
As to his Second Cross Claim, Canet prays for Judgment determining the Transfer in ¶ 65
to be void as in violation of the automatic stay and expunging the Sheriff’s
Deeds as to APN 071-02-000-005 and APN 071-02-000-005 in
DATED: July 28, 2017.
HARTMAN
& HARTMAN
/S/
Jeffrey L. Hartman
Jeffrey
L. Hartman, Esq.
Attorney
for Patrick Canet,
Foreign
Representative
-10-
Case
17-05016-btb Doc 15 Entered 07/28/17 13:41:35 Page 11 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I
certify that I am an employee of Hartman & Hartman, and that on July 28,
2017, I caused to be served the foregoing document by the following means to
the persons as listed below:
a.
Electronically, via the Court’s ECF System, to
FIX
b.
U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, to
STEVE E. ABELMAN
on behalf of Creditor JED
MARGOLIN
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
I
declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: July 28, 2017.
/S/
Stephanie Ittner
Stephanie
Ittner
-11-