1

{ Converted to html. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}

Case 17-05016-btb Doc 35 Entered 04/11/18 18:33:30 Page 1 of 7

Jeffrey L. Hartman, Esq., #1607

HARTMAN & HARTMAN

510 West Plumb Lane, Suite B

Reno, Nevada 89509

Telephone: (775) 324-2800

Fax: (775) 324-1818

E-mail: notices@bankruptcyreno.com

Attorney for Patrick Canet,

Judicial Liquidator and Foreign Representative

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

IN RE: CASE NO. BK-N-16-50644-BTB

CHAPTER 15

Adv. Proc. No. 17-05016-BTB

Hearing Date: May 24, 2018

Hearing Time:10:00 a.m.

CROSS-CLAIMANT PATRICK CANET’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS AND DISPUTED v. FACTS

JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,

Debtor.

FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THESTAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI ANDSATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, ASMANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,

Plaintiffs,

JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLALREZAZANDIAN; and all other parties claiming an interest in the real properties described in this action, Defendants.

________________________________/

PATRICK CANET,

Counterclaimant,

FRED SADRI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ASTRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST; RAY KOROGHLI, INDIVIDUALLY, RAY KOROGHLIAND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, ASMANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,

Counter-defendants.

________________________________/

PATRICK CANET,

Cross-Claimant,

JED MARGOLIN,

Cross-Defendant. /

Case 17-05016-btb Doc 35 Entered 04/11/18 18:33:30 Page 2 of 7

The following fourteen (14) paragraphs are Undisputed Facts filed by Margolin as DE 24, with which Canet agrees:

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(sic), 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.

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 21, 2018

-2-

Case 17-05016-btb Doc 35 Entered 04/11/18 18:33:30 Page 3 of 7

Declaration of Matthew D. Francis (“Francis Decl.), ¶ 2, Exhibit A.

8. In December 20131, 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 ¶ 51; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 51.

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. At a hearing on September 16, 2016, this Court granted the Canet’s request for recognition of the foreign proceeding. Francis Decl., ¶ 7.

Canet disputes the following paragraphs fifteen (15) through twenty four (24) with the following clarification: Canet agrees that these events happened; Canet

disputes the legal effect of these events.

15. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 084-130-07 in Washoe County, Nevada to be sold on April 3, 2015 by Sheriff’s Sale for $3,000 to himself. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 57; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 57. March 21, 2018 Declaration of Adam P. McMillen (“McMillen Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exhibit B.

16. On September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed upon Execution of Real Property was recorded in Washoe County, Nevada in favor of Margolin with respect to APN 084-130-07.

-3-

Case 17-05016-btb Doc 35 Entered 04/11/18 18:33:30 Page 4 of 7

ECF No. 15 at ¶ 58; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 58.

17. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 079-150-10 in Washoe County, Nevada to be sold on April 3, 2015 by Sheriff’s Sale for $5,000 to himself. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 59; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 59. McMillen Decl., ¶ 4, Exhibit C.

18. On September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property was recorded in Washoe County, Nevada in favor of Margolin with respect to APN 079150-10. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 60; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 60.

19. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 084-040-02 in Washoe County to be sold on April 3, 2015 by Sheriff’s Sale for $5,000 to himself. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 61; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 61. McMillen Decl., ¶ 5, Exhibit D.

20. On September 8, 2016, a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution Of Real Property was recorded in Washoe County in favor of Margolin with respect to APN 084-040-02.

ECF No. 15 at ¶ 62; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 62.

21. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 079-150-12 in Washoe County, Nevada to be sold on April 3, 2015 by Sheriff’s Sale for $15,000 to himself. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 63; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 63. McMillen Decl., ¶ 6, Exhibit E.

22. On September 8, 2016 a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution of Real Property was recorded in Washoe County, Nevada in favor of Margolin with respect to APN 079150-12. ECF No. 15 at ¶ 64; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 64.

23. Pursuant to a Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale of Property, Margolin caused APN 071-02-000-05 in Clark County, Nevada to be sold on December 9, 2014 by Sheriff’s Sale for $8,000 to himself. McMillen Decl., ¶ 2, Exhibit A.

24. On October 19, 2016, a Sheriff’s Deed Upon Execution was recorded in Clark County in favor of Margolin with respect to APN 071-02-000-005. ECF No. 15 at ¶

65; ECF No. 16 at ¶ 65.

-4-

Case 17-05016-btb Doc 35 Entered 04/11/18 18:33:30 Page 5 of 7

Canet does not dispute the following:

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. Id.

26. Canet never served initial disclosures or supplemental disclosures pursuant to the Amended Discovery Plan (ECF No. 19) or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a) and 26(e). Francis Decl., ¶ 4; see Fed R. Bnkr. P. 7026;

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.

Canet’s separate statement of Undisputed Facts:

1. The McMillen and Francis Declarations, DE 25 and DE 26, do not include admissible evidence demonstrating compliance with NRS 17.150(4).

2. The McMillen and Francis Declarations, DE 25 and DE 26, do not include admissible evidence demonstrating compliance with NRS 21.130.

3. The McMillen and Francis Declarations, DE 25 and DE 26, do not include admissible evidence demonstrating compliance with NRS 21.075.

4. The McMillen and Francis Declarations, DE 25 and DE 26, do not include admissible evidence demonstrating compliance with NRS 21.076.

DATED: April 11, 2018.

HARTMAN & HARTMAN

/S/ Jeffrey L. Hartman

Jeffrey L. Hartman, Esq.

Attorney for Patrick Canet,

Foreign Representative

-5-

Case 17-05016-btb Doc 35 Entered 04/11/18 18:33:30 Page 6 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I am an employee of Hartman & Hartman, and that on April 11, 2018, I caused to be served the foregoing document by the following means to the persons as listed below:

[X] a. Electronically, via the Court’s ECF System, to

MATTHEW D. FRANCIS on behalf of Cross Defendant JED MARGOLIN

mfrancis@bhfs.com;nlindsley@bhfs.com, rnofederal@bhfs.com

MATTHEW D. FRANCIS on behalf of Defendant JED MARGOLIN

mfrancis@bhfs.com;nlindsley@bhfs.com, rnofederal@bhfs.com

JEFFREY L HARTMAN on behalf of Cross-Claimant PATRICK CANET

notices@bankruptcyreno.com, sji@bankruptcyreno.com

YANXIONG LI on behalf of Counter-Defendant FRED SADRI