{Converted to html. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
Case 17-05016-btb Doc
24 Entered 03/21/18 15:20:11 Page 1 of 6
Matthew D. Francis
Nevada Bar No. 6978
Nevada Bar No. 6978
mfrancis@bhfs.com
Arthur A. Zorio
Nevada Bar No. 6547
azorio@bhfs.com
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Telephone: 775.324.4100
Facsimile: 775.333.8171
Attorneys for JED MARGOLIN
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BK-N-16-50644-BTB
Chapter 15
Adversary Proceeding: 17-05016-BTB
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-DEFENDANT JED MARGOLIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AGAINST CROSS-CLAIMANT PATRICK CANET
Hearing Date: May 24, 2018
Hearing Time: 10 a.m.
Estimated Time: 1-2 hours
In Re JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor.
__________________________________/
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN; and all other parties claimingan interest in real properties described in this action,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
PATRICK CANET,
Counterclaimant,
v.
FRED SADRI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST; RAY KOROGHLI, INDIVIDUALLY; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, AS MANAGING TRUSTEES FOR
- 1-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc
24 Entered 03/21/18 15:20:11 Page 2 of 6
KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Counter-Defendants.
__________________________________/
PATRICK CANET,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
JED MARGOLIN,
Cross-Defendant.
Pursuant to LR 7056, Cross-Defendant Jed Margolin (“Mr. Margolin”, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment Against Cross-Claimant Patrick Canet (“Canet”).
I. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (“SUF”)
A. Admitted General Allegations of Canet’s Cross Claims
(ECF No. 15)
1. In December of 2009, Mr. Margolin filed a civil action in the First Judicial District Court for Carson City, Nevada, Case No. 09 OC 00579 1B (“Carson City Action”) against Reza Zandian aka Golamreza Zandianjazi, aka Gholam Reza Zandian aka Reza Jazi aka J. Reza Jazi aka G. Reza Jazi aka Ghononreza Zandian Jazi aka Gholam Reza Jazi Zandian (“Zandian”) and Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation (collectively “Optima”). ECF No. 15 at ¶ 42; Margolin’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Jed Margolin to the Cross Claims of Patrick Canet, ECF No. 16, ¶ 42.
2. In March 2011, a default judgment was entered against Zandian and Optima in the Carson City Action. In August 2001, the default judgment was set aside and Margolin filed an amended complaint. The court in the Carson City Action allowed service of the summons by publication. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 43; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 43.
3. 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. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 44; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 44.
-2-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc
24 Entered 03/21/18 15:20:11 Page 3 of 6
4. On March 9, 2012, Margolin filed a Notice of Intent To Take Default. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 45; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 45.
5. 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. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 47; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 47.
6. 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. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 48; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 48.
7. On June 24, 2013 default judgment was entered against Zandian in the amount of $1,495,775.74. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 49; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 49; March , 2018 Declaration of Matthew D. Francis (“Francis Decl.”), ¶ 2, Exhibit A.
8. In December 2013, Zandian moved to set aside the default judgment entered in June of 2013. That motion was denied in February 2014. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 50; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 50.
9. On March 12, 2014, Zandian filed a Notice of Appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 51; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 51.
10. On August 18, 2014, the court issued its Order Re: Writ of Execution. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 52; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 52; Francis Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit B.
11. On October 19, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Zandian’s appeals numbered 65205 and 65960. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 53; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 53.
12. 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. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 54; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 54.
13. On May 19, 2016, Canet filed his Chapter 15 Petition For Recognition of Foreign Proceeding. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 55; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 55.
14. On September 9, 2016 this Court granted the request for recognition of the foreign proceeding. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 56; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 56.
-3-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc
24 Entered 03/21/18 15:20:11 Page 4 of 6
15. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 084-130-07 in
16. On September 8, 2016 a
Sheriff’s Deed upon Execution of Real Property was recorded in
17. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 079150-10 in
18. On September 8, 2016 a
Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property was recorded in
19. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 084040-02 in
20. On September 8, 2016, a
Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property was recorded in
21. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 079-150-12 in
22. On September 8, 2016 a
Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property was recorded in
23. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s
Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 071-02-000-005 in
-4-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc
24 Entered 03/21/18 15:20:11 Page 5 of 6
24. On October 19, 2016, a
Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution was recorded in
B. Canet’s Failure to Serve Initial Disclosures
or Respond to Discovery
25. On August 21, 2017, the
parties in this action entered into a Standard Discovery Plan (ECF No. 18), and
on August 22, 2017, the parties entered into an Amended Standard Discovery Plan
(ECF No. 19). Pursuant to the Amended Standard Discovery Plan, the last day for
parties to serve initial disclosures was September 21, 2017. (ECF No. 19).
Discovery closed on February 26, 2018.
26. Canet never served initial disclosures or supplemental disclosures pursuant to the Amended Discovery Plan (ECF No. 19), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 26(e), or Fed. Bnkr. R. 7026. Francis Decl., ¶ 4.
27. Canet never served responses to Mr. Margolin’s First Set of Interrogatories to Patrick Canet or Mr. Margolin’s First Set of Requests for Production to Patrick Canet, both served on February 6, 2018, despite two extensions of time granted by undersigned counsel. Francis Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exhibits C-G.
DATED: This day of March, 2018.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
By:
Matthew D. Francis
Arthur A. Zorio
Telephone: 775-324-4100
Attorneys for JED MARGOLIN
-5-
Case 17-05016-btb Doc
24 Entered 03/21/18 15:20:11 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP, and on this day of March, 2018, I served the document entitled STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF CROSSDEFENDANT JED MARGOLIN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS-CLAIMANT PATRICK CANET on the parties listed below via the following:
[ ] VIA FIRST CLASS U.S. MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Reno, Nevada, addressed as follows:
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP
7785
W.
yli@wrightlegal.net
Jeffrey L. Harman, Esq.
HARMAN & HARTMAN
notices@bankruptcyreno.com
[ ] BY PERSONAL SERVICE: by personally hand-delivering or causing to be hand delivered by such designated individual whose particular duties include delivery of such on behalf of the firm, addressed to the individual(s) listed, signed by such individual or his/her representative accepting on his/her behalf. A receipt of copy signed and dated by such an individual confirming delivery of the document will be maintained with the document and is attached.
[ ] VIA COURIER: by delivering a copy of the document to a courier service for over-night delivery to the foregoing parties.
[X] VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE: by electronically filing the document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which served the following parties electronically:
_________________________________
Employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP
-6-