{Converted to html. JM}

 

 

Electronically Filed

Mar 22 2022 12:45 p.m.

Elizabeth A. Brown

Clerk of Supreme Court

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

 

Supreme Court No. 82559

District Court Case No. 09OC005791B

 

REZA ZANDIAN, A/K/A GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI, A/K/A GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN, A/K/A REZA JAZI, A/K/A J. REZA JAZI, A/K/A G. REZA JAZI, A/K/A GHONOREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Appellant,

 

   vs.

 

JED MARGOLIN, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Respondent.

 

RESPONDENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NRAP 38 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

 

Respondent Jed Margolin hereby replies to Appellant’s Response to Respondent’s NRAP 38 Motion for Sanctions.

 

In his Response, Appellant argues that his unsupported appeal did not rise to the level of frivolousness required for a fee award under NRAP 38 even though the present appeal was dismissed for the same reasons his last appeal was dismissed in 2016. Specifically, Appellant argues that since the prior appeal and the present

 

-1-

 


 

appeal were allegedly “substantively different” and the January 19, 2021 Order he appealed from involved a motion to void deeds (that he never opposed), Appellant should escape having to compensate Respondent for fees. Response, p. 5. Appellant’s attempts to distinguish the appeals and associated arguments fail for a number of reasons.

 

First, in both appeals, Appellant conceded that no statute order rule specifically provided jurisdiction for an appeal from the given order at issue. Compare 13 ROA at 3154-55 (Order Dismissing Appeal) with February 16, 2022 Order Dismissing Appeal.

 

Second, in both appeals, this Court cited the same language from Gumm v. Mainor, holding that the orders appealed from did not “affect the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered.” Id.; see Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002).

 

Third, in both appeals, this Court found that Respondent’s right to execute on his default judgment arose from his Default Judgment, not the subsequent debtor’s examination order or motion to void deeds order. 13 ROA at 3154-55. Specifically, in this Court’s March 4, 2016 Order Dismissing Appeal, this Court held as follows: “Any rights respondent has to execute upon the judgment arise out of the final judgment itself, not from the order directing a debtor’s examination.” 13 ROA at 3155. In this Court’s February 16, 2022 Order Dismissing Appeal, this Court held as follows: “Margolin’s right to execute on his default judgment arises from the

 

-2-

 

 

default judgment itself, not the subsequent enforcement order.” The aforementioned language of the two Orders is very similar.

 

The undisputed facts show that Appellant’s attempt to repackage an appeal when Appellant conceded no rule or statute allowed for it, and the jurisdictional basis cut directly against the grain of controlling Nevada law, was completely unsupported and frivolous.

 

For these reasons and for the reasons stated in Respondent’s Motion, Respondent respectfully requests that this Court impose the monetary sanctions pursuant to NRAP 38 in the manner requested.

 

 

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2022.

 

BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP

 

By: /s/ Matthew D. Francis

 

Matthew D. Francis

Nevada Bar No. 6978

Arthur A. Zorio

Nevada Bar No. 6547

5520 Kietzke Lane, Suite 110

Reno, NV 89511

Telephone: 775.324.4100

Facsimile: 775.333.8171

Email: mfrancis@bhfs.com

azorio@bhfs.com

 

Attorneys for Respondent JED MARGOLIN

 

-3-

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

 

Pursuant to NRAP 25(b), I certify that I am an employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, and on this 22nd day of March, 2022, I served the document entitled RESPONDENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF NRAP 38 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS on the parties listed below in the manner described below:

 

Mark Forsberg, Esq.

Rick Oshinski, Esq.

Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd.

504 E. Musser Street, Suite 202

Carson City, NV 89701

rick@oshinskiforsberg.com

mark@oshinskiforsberg.com

 

 

[   ]   VIA U.S. MAIL: by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Reno,

Nevada as addressed to the foregoing party.

 

[   ]   VIA COURIER: by delivering a copy of the document to Federal Express for first priority delivery to the foregoing party in Paris, France.

 

[X]   VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE: by electronically filing the document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which served the foregoing parties electronically:

 

/s/ Jeff Tillison

 

Employee of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

 

-4-