{ Converted to text using OCR. The PDF is the controlling document. The Exhibits are in the PDF. JM}
REC'D & FILED
2011 JUN 22 PM 3:21
ALAN GLOVER CLERK
BY DEPUTY _________
Matthew D. Francis (6978)
Adam P. McMillen (10678)
WATSON ROUNDS
Telephone: 775-324-4100
Facsimile: 775-333-8171
Attorneys for Plaintiff Margolin
In
The First Judicial District Court of the State of
In
and for
|
JED MARGOLIN, an individual, Plaintiff, VS.
OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOE Companies 1-10, DOE Corporations 11-20, and DOE Individuals 21-30, Defendants.
|
Case No.: 09OC00579 1B Dept. No.: 1
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND COUNTERMOTIONS. TO STRIKE AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
|
COMES NOW Plaintiff Jed Margolin and hereby files this opposition to Defendant Reza Zandian's (“Zandian") motion to dismiss on a special appearance and Plaintiff's countermotions to strike the motion to dismiss and in the alternative for leave to amend the complaint. This opposition and countermotions are based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and all pleadings, motions, and papers on file herein.
-1-
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jed Margolin is the
named inventor on numerous patents and patent applications, including United
States Patent No. 5,566,073 ("the '073 Patent"), United States Patent
No. 5,904,724 ("the '724 Patent") United States Patent No. 5,978,488
("the '488 Patent") and United States Patent No. 6,377,436 ("the
'436 Patent") (collectively "the Patents"). See Complaint, 19.
Mr. Margolin is the legal owner and owner of record for the `488 and '436
Patents, and has never assigned those patents.
In May 2006, OTG and Mr.
Margolin licensed the '073 and '724 Patents to Geneva Aerospace, Inc., and Nit.
Margolin received a royalty payment pursuant to the royalty agreement between
Mr. Margolin and OTG.
On about December 5, 2007, Defendant Zandian filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('`USPTO") fraudulent assignment documents allegedly assigning all four of the Patents to Optima Technology Corporation (`'OTC"), a company apparently owned by Defendant Zandian. Id., ¶ 15; see also the fraudulent assignment documents attached hereto as Exhibit 1.[1] Upon discovery of the fraudulent filings, Mr. Margolin: (a) filed a report with the Storey County Sheriff s Department; (b) took action to regain record title to the '488 and `436 Patents that he legally owned; and (c) assisted OTG in regaining record title of the '073 and
______________
[1] The signature on the attached Recordation Form Cover Sheet is that of Reza Zandian; also, the internal address for Optima Technology Corporation, which is apparently another name for Zandian, lists John Peter Lee Limited, 830 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, 702-382-4044, info@johnpeterlee.com.
-2-
‘724
Patents that it legally owned and upon which it contracted with W. Margolin for
royalties.
Shortly before this, Mr.
Margolin and OTG had been named as defendants in an action for declaratory
relief regarding non-infringement of the '073 and '724 Patents in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, in a case titled: Universal
Avionics Systems Corporation v. Optima Technology Group, Inc., No. CV
07-588-TUC-RCC (the "
On August 18, 2008, the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona entered a final judgment in
favor of Mr. Margolin and OTG on their declaratory relief action, and ordered
that OTC had no interest in the '073 or '724 Patents, and that the assignment
documents filed by Zandian with the USPTO were "forged, invalid, void, of
no force and effect."
Due to Defendants' fraudulent
acts, title to the Patents was clouded and interfered with Plaintiff's and
OTG's ability to license the Patents.
H. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 11, 2009. The Complaint was personally served on Defendant Zandian on February 2, 2010.[2] Zandian's answer to the Complaint was due on or before February 22, 2010. Zandian did not answer the Complaint or respond in any way. Almost a year after the Complaint was filed, on December 2, 2010, a default was entered
______________________
[2] See Affidavit of Service, dated 2/18/10, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
-3-
against Zandian. "Plaintiff then filed and served a Notice of Entry of Default on Zandian on December 7, 2010 and on his last known attorney on December 16, 2010,
On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed in this Court and served a certificate of service indicating that the application for entry of default against Zandian was sent to attorney John Peter Lee. On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Defendants Zandian, Optima Technology Corporation, a California Corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada Corporation.
On March 1, 2011, a default judgment was entered against Zandian and the other defendants for $121,594.46. On March 7, 2011, notice of entry of that default was filed and served by mail on Zandian and his counsel.
On June 9, 2011, Zandian filed the motion to dismiss.
III. ARGUMENT
A. SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT WAS EFFECTUATED UPON ZANDIAN
NRCP 4 states that service of the summons and complaint shall be made upon the "defendant personally, or by leaving copies thereof at the defendant's dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein, or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process." NRCP 4(d)(6).
In this case, the complaint was filed on December 11, 2009. As Plaintiff was having difficulty serving Zandian, the summons and complaint were mailed to Zandian's attorney, John Peter Lee, on January 9, 2010, and a request for assistance in serving Zandian was made. See Letter, dated 1/8/10, from Cassandra Joseph to John Peter Lee, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.[3] Moreover, Zandian was personally served with the summons and complaint on February 2, 2010. See Affidavit of Service, dated 2/18/10, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
____________________
[3] John Peter Lee never responded to Cassandra Joseph's request for assistance in serving Zandian and the Defendant entities. At least, Mr. Lee never responded until well after the default was entered by filing the instant motion, even though he represented Zandian prior to this action.
-4-
Therefore, Zandian was served with the summons and complaint and was given proper notice of this lawsuit In fact, Plaintiff took the additional step of mailing the summons and complaint to Zandian and his lawyer. Unfortunately, for reasons known only to Zandian and his lawyer, Zandian decided not to answer the complaint or otherwise respond to the complaint In a timely manner.
B. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER ZANDIAN IN THIS ACTION
In addition, in
In addition, the following citation acknowledges that there must be minimum contacts for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over a nonresident and states that owning property or doing business within the state is enough to confer jurisdiction:
-5-
We acknowledged in Metal-Matic, Inc. v. 8th
McCulloch Corp. v. O'Donnell, 83
In this case, Zandian owns property and does business within the forum state. As a result, Zandian's forum activities are so "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" that he may be deemed present in the forum and therefore general jurisdiction is appropriate.
In fact, Zandian currently owns real property throughout Nevada. He owns two properties in Clark County.[4] He owns 10 properties in Washoe County[5]. He owns and/or is partial owner of 6 properties in Lyon County.[6] He is part owner of two properties in Churchill County.[7] He is part owner of one property in Elko County [8].
With regards to doing business within Nevada, Zandian is a manager of 11000 Reno Highway, Fallon, LLC, a Nevada LLC that is in active status.[9] Currently, 11000 Reno Highway, Fallon, LLC is listed as the owner of 640 acres of real property in Churchill County.[10]
____________________
[4] See Zandian's Clark County property information, attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
[5] See Zandian's Washoe County property information, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
[6] See Zandian's Lyon County property information, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
[7] See Zandian's Churchill County property information, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
[8] See Zandian's Elko County property information, attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
[9] See Zandian's manager information for 11000 Reno Highway, Fallon, L.L.C., attached hereto as Exhibit 9.
[10] See 11000 Reno Highway, Fallon, LLCs Churchill County property information, attached hereto as Exhibit 10.
-6-
Zandian is a managing member and registered agent of Misfits Development LLC, a Nevada LLC in active status.[11] Zandian is a managing member and registered agent of Elko North 5th Avenue, LLC, a Nevada LLC in active status. [12] Zandian is a managing member and registered agent for Stagecoach Valley LLC, an active Nevada LLC.[13]
Zandian acted as the resident agent for a revoked Nevada limited liability company named Rock and Royalty LLC where Zandian's resident agent address was 1401 S. Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104.[14] Zandian was a managing member of Gold Canyon Development LLC, a Nevada LLC that is now in default status. [15] Zandian was a managing member of High Tech Development LLC, a Nevada LLC that has been dissolved.[16] Zandian was a managing member of Lyon Park Development LLC, a Nevada LLC that has been dissolved.[17] Zandian was a managing member of Churchill Park Development LLC, a Nevada LLC that has been dissolved.[18] Zandian was a manager of Sparks Village LLC, a Nevada LLC that is in default status.[19] Zandian was president, secretary, treasurer, director and resident agent of Optima Technology Corporation, a now revoked Nevada close corporation.[20] Zandian was a managing member of I-50 Plaza LLC, a Nevada LLC in default status. [21] Zandian was a manager of Dayton Plaza LLC, a Nevada LLC in default status. [22] Finally, Zandian was a manager of Reno Highway Plaza, LLC, a Nevada LLC in revoked status.[23]
________________________
[11] See Zandian's managing member and resident agent information for Misfits Development LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 11.
[12] See Zandian's managing member and resident agent information for Elko North 5th Avenue, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 12.
[13] See Zandian's managing member and resident agent information for stagecoach Valley LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
[14] See Zandian's resident agent information for Rock and Royalty LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 14.
[15] See Zandian's managing member information for Gold Canyon Development LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 15.
[16] See Zandian's managing member information for High Tech Development LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 16.
[17] See Zandian's managing member information for Lyon Park Development LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 17.
[18] See Zandian's managing member information for Churchill Park Development LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 18.
[19] See Zandian's manager information for Sparks Village LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 19.
[20] See Zandian's information for Optima Technology Corporation, attached hereto as Exhibit 20.
[21] See Zandian's information for I-50 Plaza LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 21.
[22] See Zandian's information for Dayton Plaza, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 22.
[23] See Zandian's information for Reno Highway Plaza, LLC, attached hereto as Exhibit 23.
-7-
Also, Zandian listed Carson City and Las Vegas addresses for his registered agent and officer information for Rock and Royalty LLC, Optima Technology Corporation, High Tech Development LLC, Lyon Park Development LLC, Churchill Park Development LLC, Sparks Village, LLC, I-50 Plaza LLC, Dayton Plaza, LLC, 11000 Reno Highway Fallon LLC, Misfits Development LLC, Elko North 5the Ave, LLC, and Stagecoach Valley LLC.[24]
As demonstrated above, Zandian clearly owns or partially owns 21 properties within and throughout the state of Nevada and Zandian clearly does a significant amount of business within the state. His property ownership holdings and his business dealings, alone, show that Zandians’s forum activities are so "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" that he may be deemed present in the forum and therefore general jurisdiction is appropriate.
C. NEVADA HAS ABROGATED THE DOCTRINE OF SPECIAL/GENERAL APPEARANCES
Zandian argues that he is making a special appearance "for the purpose of testing both the sufficiency of service and the jurisdiction of the court; thus, Zandian has not consented to personal jurisdiction of any Nevada court by bringing the instant motion." See Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance, dated 6/8/11, 2:12-15, on file herein.
However, the Nevada Supreme Court has abrogated the doctrine of special/general appearances. Hansen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 116 Nev. 650, 656, 6 P.3d 982, 985 (2000). "Now, before a defendant files a responsive pleading such as an answer, that defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, and/or insufficiency of service of process, and such a defense is not 'waived by being joined with one or more other defenses.' Alternatively, a defendant may raise its defenses, including those relating to jurisdiction and service, in a responsive pleading." Hansen, 116 Nev. at 656, 6 P.3d at 986.
Zandian could have raised his alleged defenses of insufficiency of service of process and lack of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss without waiving such defenses and his "special" appearance is a nullity. Therefore, Zandian's motion is merely a motion to dismiss. However,
_____________________
[24] See Exhibits 10, 11, 12, 13,14, 16,17, 18, 19,20,21, and 22, attached hereto.
-8-
as will be shown above and below, the motion to dismiss is procedurally and factually fatally flawed.
D. ZANDIAN CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS
"In considering 'a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party."' Germaine Music v. Universal Songs of Polygram, 275 F. Supp. 2d 1288, 1294 (D. Nev. 2003) aff’d in part, 130 F. App'x. 153 (9th Cir. 2005).
In his first paper filed with this Court, Zandian moves this Court to set aside the judgment and dismiss the case. Zandian casually makes a short reference to NRCP 55(c) and NRCP 60(b) in a request to set aside the default judgment and then in the same sentence requests that the Court dismiss this case "on the grounds that the court does not enjoy personal jurisdiction over Zandian." See Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance, dated 6/8/11, 6:9-11, on file herein.
However, as shown above, Zandian was properly served and his forum contacts are so substantial as to create general jurisdiction over him in the State of Nevada. Therefore, construing the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Zandian's motion to dismiss cannot meet the standard for a motion to dismiss.
E. ZANDIAN HAS NOT AND CANNOT MEET THE STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO SET ASIDE
If a defaulting party is dissatisfied with a default judgment, then the only procedural remedy is to set aside the default. NRCP 60(b) states the standard for setting aside a default judgment as follows:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore, denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; or, (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that an injunction should have prospective application.
-9-
NRCP 60(b).
A district court's exercise of discretion, in setting aside a default judgment, or in refusing to do so, will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Hotel Last Frontier Corp. v, Frontier Properties, Inc., 79 Nev. 150, 154, 380 P.2d 293, 294 (1963). The district court must consider the following factors before granting a motion to set aside:
First, there must have been "a prompt application to remove the judgment.” Yochum, 98 Nev. at 486, 653 P.2d at 1216 (citing Hotel Last Frontier v. Frontier Prop., 79 Nev. 150, 380 P.2d 293 (1963)) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Second, there must be an "absence of an intent to delay the proceedings." Id. (Emphasis added.) Third, there must be evidence of "a lack of knowledge of procedural requirements" on the part of the moving patty. Id (Emphasis added). Fourth, the motion must be made in "good faith." Id. (Emphasis added.) Fifth, “the moving party must promptly tender a `meritorious defense' to the claim for relief." Yochum, 98 Nev. at 487, 653 P.2d at 1216-17 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Finally, "the court must give due consideration to the stater’ underlying basic policy of resolving cases on their merits whenever possible." Yochum, 98 Nev. at 487, 653 P2d at 1217 (emphasis added).
Kahn v. Orme, 108 Nev. 510, 513, 835 P.2d 790,792-93 (1992)(emphasis added).
The acceptable procedures to satisfy the requirement that a "meritorious defense" be shown are as follows:
(1) the fact testimony or affidavit of one possessing testimonial qualifications, which factual information, if true, would tend to establish a defense to all or part of the claim for relief asserted; or (2) the opinion of counsel for a party, based upon facts related to him (without setting forth such facts), that a meritorious defense exists to all or part of the claim. for relief asserted; or (3) the tendering of a responsive pleading in good faith, with the moving papers, which responsive pleading, if true, would tend to establish a meritorious defense to all or part of the claim for relief asserted; or (4) any combination of the above.
Hotel Last Frontier Corp., 79 Nev. at 155, 380 P.2d at 295.
In this case, Zandian fails to show that there was prompt application to remove the judgment or an absence of intent to delay the proceedings. There is nothing in Zandiain s motion to dismiss on either subject
On the other hand, the facts demonstrate that Zandian and his counsel had notice of the action and the default early on. In fact, on December 2, 2010, a default was entered against
-10-
Zandian. Plaintiff then filed and served a Notice of Entry of Default on Zandian on December 7, 2010 and on his last known attorney on December 16, 2010. On February 25, 2011, Plaintiff filed in this Court and served a certificate of service indicating that the application for entry of default against Zandian was sent to attorney John Peter Lee. On February 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed an application for default judgment against Defendants Zandian, Optima Technology Corporation, a California Corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada Corporation. On March 1, 2011, a default judgment was entered against Zandian and the other defendants for $121,594.46. On March 7, 2011, notice of entry of that default was filed and served by mail on Zandian and his counsel.
Notwithstanding the many notices provided to Zandian and his counsel, Zandian only now seeks to cursorily "set aside" the default judgment. However, Zandian provides no explanation for the delay in responding to the default judgment and he does not provide any basis upon which to demonstrate an absence of intent to delay the proceedings. Zandian only improperly attacks the action itself on the basis of jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process.
Zandian does not show any evidence of "a lack of knowledge of procedural requirements" regarding setting aside a default judgment. None. To the contrary, Zandian only points to MRCP 60(b) in his request to set aside the default judgment, and he only grounds his request on service of process and jurisdiction. See Motion to Dismiss, dated 6/8/11, 6:9-10, on file herein.
Zandian fails to even bring a true motion to set aside and therefore has failed to bring a motion to set aside in good faith. Zandian's motion is merely a motion to dismiss with a minor reference to the procedural rule for setting aside the default, which constitutes bad faith.
Zandian does not proffer any defense, nor does he even indicate that a meritorious defense exists. Zandian fails to provide this Court with any fact testimony or affidavit, which, if true, would tend to establish a defense to all or part of the claims asserted. Zandian fails to provide any opinion of counsel that a meritorious defense exists to all or part of the claims. Zandian did not tender a responsive pleading in good faith, with the moving papers, which
-11-
responsive pleading, if true, would tend to establish a meritorious defense to all or part of the claims. In short, Zandian has completely failed to show that he has a meritorious defense to any of the claims asserted in the Complaint.
As a result of the above facts, Zandian has not and cannot meet the burden necessary to allow this Court to set aside the default judgment.
F. COUNTERMOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS AS ZANDIAN PREVIOUSLY WAIVED HIS OBJECTIONS TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION, PROCESS, OR SERVICE OF PROCESS
NRCP 12(f) allows motions to strike as follows:
Upon motion made by a party before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted by these rules, upon motion made by a party within 20 days after the service of the pleading upon the party or upon the court's own initiative at any time, the court may order stricken from any pleading any insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.
NRCP 12(f)(emphasis added).
In this case, after a default judgment was entered and noticed, Zandian has now improperly filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Zandian. The motion to dismiss is improper because Zandian waived such defenses by not objecting to insufficiency of service of process or lack of jurisdiction in a timely motion to dismiss or a timely answer: "Objections to personal jurisdiction, process, or service of process are waived, however, if not made in a timely motion or not included in a responsive pleading such as an answer. Hansen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court ex rel. County of Clark, 116 Nev. 650, 656, 6 P.3d 982, 986 (2000).[25]
Zandian clearly did not file a timely motion to dismiss or any other timely responsive pleading regarding his objections to personal jurisdiction, process, or service of process. Therefore, Zandian has waived any such defenses. As a result, Plaintiff now respectfully
________________
[25] This is consistent with NRCP 12(h)(1), which states as follows: "A defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion in the circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course."
-12-
requests that this Court strike Zandian’s motion to dismiss upon the fact that such waived defenses are now an "insufficient defense" to object to this Court's jurisdiction.
G. COUNTERMOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
This countermotion is made and based upon NRCP 15(a) which states that leave to amend a party's pleading "shall be freely given when justice so requires."
If the Court is willing to either dismiss or set aside the default judgment, then, and only then, Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the Complaint to properly reference Zandian's actions in the Arizona case and to re-serve Zandian in a manner that Zandian cannot complain of any further.
For instance, Plaintiff states in the Complaint that in the Arizona action, “Mr. Margolin and OTG filed a cross-claim for declaratory relief against Zandian in order to obtain legal title to their respective patents.” See Complaint, ¶ 17. While Zandian effectively represents to this Court that he was not involved in the Arizona action, it is absolutely true that Zandian signed the fraudulent patent assignments on behalf of Optima Technology Corporation, which fraudulent assignments led to the instant action. It is by and through the fraudulent actions of one individual, Zandian, which created the Arizona action and the instant action. However, Plaintiff recognizes that Optima Technology Corporation was the entity behind which Zandian hid in the Arizona action. Plaintiff is willing to amend the Complaint to so allege.
In addition, if the Court finds there is insufficiency of service of process, then Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court’s assistance in obtaining a current address from Zandian or his counsel as to where Zandian can be “properly” served with a summons and complaint. Again, Plaintiff would be more than willing to re-allege in an amended complaint the current residence of Zandian, wherever that may be.
However, Plaintiff vehemently rejects any notion that Plaintiff fraudulently alleged the residence of Zandian in the original Complaint or any other fact in the Complaint. The attached property records and business records show that Zandian has represented to the subject counties and state of Nevada that his addresses were in both Nevada and California.
-13-
Moreover, when asked for assistance in serving Zandian, his counsel refused to respond or assist.[26] Instead, Zandian slurs Plaintiff with allegations of fraud regarding Zandian's residence or whereabouts. Then Zandian states that his residency "was at all times in California", without telling the Court where in California he resides. In fact, Zandian fails to ever deny that he resided in Fair Oaks, California, where he was served with the summons and complaint. See Affidavit of Service, dated 2/18/10, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Zandian's notion to dismiss and grant Plaintiffs countermotions. More specifically, Plaintiff has demonstrated that Zandian was properly served and jurisdiction is proper. Moreover, Zandian failed to bring a timely motion to dismiss and therefore Zandian waived any objections to jurisdiction or insufficiency of process. Therefore, the motion to dismiss should be denied and stricken accordingly.
Zandian also failed to bring a proper motion to set aside and therefore any such motion should be denied.
Finally, if this Court decides to grant any of Zandian's requests, then Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the Complaint in order to remedy any defects therein.
__________________
[26] See Letter, dated 1/8/10, from Cassandra Joseph to John Peter Lee, attached hereto as Exhibit 3. John Peter Lee never responded to Cassandra Joseph's request for assistance in serving Zandian and the Defendant entities. At least, Mr. Lee never responded until well after the default was entered by filing the instant motion, even though he represented Zandian prior to this action.
-14-
AFFIRATION PURSUANT TO NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the social security number of any person.
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2011.
BY: ______________________
Matthew D. Francis (6979)
Adam P. McMillen (10678)
WATSON ROUNDS
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: 775-324-4100
Facsimile: 775-333-8171
Attorneys for Plaintiff Jed Margolin
-15-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NRCP 5(b), I certify that I am an employee of Watson Rounds, and that on this date, I deposited for mailing, in a sealed envelope, with first-class postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS AND COUNTERMOTIONS TO STRIKE AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, addressed as follows:
John Peter Lee
John Peter Lee, Ltd.
830 Las Vegas Blvd. South
Las Vegas, 89101
Dated: June 22,2011
___________________
Carla Ousby
-16-