{ Converted to text using OCR. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
Feb 17 2016 03:17 p.m.
Tracie K. Lindeman
Clerk of Supreme Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
STATE OF
|
Appellant, VS. JED MARGOLIN, AN INDIVIDUAL,
Respondent. |
Case No. 69372 District Court Case No. 09OC005791B |
REPLY TO APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Reza Zandian acknowledges “no statute or court rule explicitly provides for an appeal from an order directing a debtor’s examination or to produce
documents…”[1] As a result, Zandian argues the district court’s order “affects the rights of Appellant under the final judgment and NRS 21.270, as triggered by the final judgment, and therefore the order should constitute a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8).”[2]
__________________________
[1] See Appellant’s Response to Order to Show Cause, filed 2/2/16 (“Appellant’s Response”), 1.
[2] See Appellant’s Response at 2.
However, to constitute a special order after final judgment under NRAP 3A(b)(8), the order must affect rights incorporated in the final judgment.[3] In an attempt to cast his appeal within NRAP 3A(b)(8), Zandian argues that the order “affects the Appellant’s rights relative to Respondent’s rights to execute the judgment.”[4] However, Respondent Jed Margolin’s rights to execute arise out of the final judgment, not the order directing the debtor’s examination or to produce documents. As a result, Zandian is not able to explain or show how any rights are affected much less how any rights arising out of the final judgment are affected by the order, much less how NRAP 3A(b)(8) applies.
There is no statute or court rule providing for an appeal from the order directing the debtor’s examination of Zandian or to produce documents.[5] The order does not affect any rights incorporated in the final judgment and simply
____________________________
[3]
See Appellant’s Response at 3 (citing Gumm v.
Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002) (“A special order made after
final judgment, to be appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2), must be an order
affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment
previously entered. It must be an order affecting rights incorporated in the
judgment.”); see also Wilkinson v. Wilkinson,
73
[4] See Appellant’s Response at 3.
[5]
See Wardleigh v. Second Judicial Dist. Court In
& For Cty. of Washoe, 111
2
enforces the final judgment.[6] Zandian has not provided any information or documentation to the contrary. As a result, the order is not appealable and this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2016.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
/s/ Adam P. McMillen
Matthew D. Francis
Nevada Bar No. 6978
Adam P. McMillen
Telephone: 775-324-4100
Attorneys for Respondent Jed Margolin
[6] On February 3, 2016, the district court issued a bench warrant for Zandian’s arrest for failing to comply with the district court’s order to show cause and failing to appear before the district court regarding Zandian’s failure to produce financial documents related to the execution of the judgment.
3
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this Reply to Appellant’s Response to Order to Show Cause has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14 point, double-spaced Times New Roman font, and complies with the formatting requirements of NRAP 32(a)(4), the typeface requirements of NRAP 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of NRAP 32(a)(6).
I further certify that this response complies with the page or type volume limitations of NRAP 32(a)(7) because, excluding the parts of the response
exempted by NRAP 32(a)(7)(c), it is proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 846 words.
I hereby certify that I have read this response and, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, it is not frivolous or interposed for any
improper purpose. I further certify that this response complies with all applicable Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
4
I
understand that I may be subject to sanctions in the event that the
accompanying response is not in conformity with the requirements of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2016.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
/s/ Adam P. McMillen
Matthew D. Francis
Nevada Bar No. 6978
Adam P. McMillen
Telephone: 775-324-4100
Attorneys for Respondent Jed Margolin
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to NEFCR 9 the undersigned certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, REPLY TO APPELLANT’S
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, will be served upon counsel of record via electronic mail through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
DATED: February 17, 2016
/s/ Nancy Lindsley
An Employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
6