{ Converted to text using OCR. The PDF is the controlling document. The Exhibits are in the PDF. JM}

REC’D & FILED

2011  FEB 12   PM 3:22

ALAN GLOVER CLERK

By DEPUTY __________

Matthew D. Francis (6978)

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

In The First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
In and for Carson City

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 MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING CONTEMPT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Jed Margolin by and through his attorneys, requests that this Court issue an Order requiring Reza Zandian ("Zandian") to appear and show cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court for having deliberately and willfully violated the Court's January 13, 2014 Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Debtor Examination and to Produce Documents. The Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

According to the Order, Zandian was required to:

-1-

1. Appear before the Court and answer upon oath or affirmation concerning his property at a Judgment Debtor Examination under the authority of a Judge of the Court on February 11, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.; and,

2. To produce to Plaintiffs counsel at least one week prior to the Judgment Debtor Examination, all information and documents identifying, related to, and/or comprising the following:

a. Any and all information and documentation identifying real property, computers, cell phones, intellectual property, vehicles, brokerage accounts, bank deposits and all other assets that may be available for execution to satisfy the Judgment entered by the Court, including, but not limited to, information relating to financial accounts, monies owed to Zandian by others, etc.

b. Documents sufficient to show Zandian's balance sheet for each month for the years 2007 to the present.

c. Documents sufficient to show Zandian's gross revenues for each month for the years 2007 to the present.

d. Documents sufficient to show Zandian's costs and expenses for each month for the years 2007 to the present.

e. All tax returns filed by Zandian with any governmental body for the years 2007 to the present, including all schedules, W-2's and 1099's.

f. All of Zandian's accounting records, computerized electronic and/or printed on paper format for the years 2007 to the present.

g. All of Zandian's statements, cancelled checks and related banking documents for any bank, brokerage or other financial account at least partially controlled by Zandian, or recorded in the name of Zandian or for Zandian's benefit, for the years 2007 to the present.

h. Alt of Zandian's checkbooks, checkbook stubs and checkbook entries for the years 2007 to the present.

-2-

i. Documents sufficient to show the means and source of payment of Zandian's current residence and any other residence for the years 2007 to the present.

j . Documents sufficient to show the means and source of payment of Zandian's counsel in this matter.

k. Any settlement agreements by which another party has agreed to pay money to Zandian.

See Exhibit 1.

On February 10, 2014, Zandian's counsel informed Plaintiff's counsel that Zandian "is currently in the middle east on business" and "will not be able to attend the debtor's examination" tomorrow morning in front of Judge Russell. Zandian's counsel also informed Plaintiffs counsel on February 10, 2014, that no documents have been produced regarding the debtor's examination allegedly "due to the short amount of time provided." See Exhibit 2, which is a copy of the February 10, 2014 email, attached hereto.

Without providing any justification, Zandian has violated the Court's Order by not providing the documents to Plaintiff by February 4, 2014, and by refusing and failing to appear at the Court-ordered debtor's examination on February 11, 2014. Plaintiff therefore requests that Zandian be ordered to appear in Court to Show Cause why he should not be held in Contempt of Court.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1.   Background

Plaintiff Jed Margolin is the named inventor on 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 Amended Complaint, filed 8/11/11, ¶¶ 9-10. In 2004, Mr. Margolin granted to Robert Adams, then CEO of Optima Technology, Inc. (later renamed Optima Technology Group (hereinafter "OTG"), a Cayman Islands Corporation specializing in aerospace technology) a Power of Attorney regarding the Patents. Id. at ¶ 11.

-3-

Subsequently, Mr. Margolin assigned the '073 and '724 Patents to OTG and revoked the Power of Attorney. Id. at ¶ 13.

In May 2006, OTG and Mr. Margolin licensed the '073 and '724 Patents to Geneva Aerospace, Inc., and Mr. Margolin received a royalty payment pursuant to a royalty agreement between Mr. Margolin and OTG. Id. at ¶ 12. On or about October 2007, OTG licensed the `073 Patent to Honeywell International, Inc., and Mr. Margolin received a royalty payment pursuant to a royalty agreement between Mr. Margolin and OTG. Id. at ¶ 14.

On or about December 5, 2007, Zandian filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") assignment documents allegedly assigning all four of the Patents to Optima Technology Corporation ("OTC"), a company apparently owned by Zandian at the time. Id. at 15. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2007, Mr. Margolin, Robert Adams, and OTG were named as defendants in the case titled Universal Avionics Systems Corporation v. Optima Technology Group, Inc., No. CV 07-588-TUC-RCC (the "Arizona action"). Id. at ¶ 17. Zandian was not a party in the Arizona action. Nevertheless, the plaintiff in the Arizona action asserted that Mr. Margolin and OTG were not the owners of the '073 and '724 Patents, and OTG filed a cross-claim for declaratory relief against Optima Technology Corporation ("OTC") in order to obtain legal title to the respective patents. Id.

On August 18, 2008, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona entered a default judgment against OTC and found that OTC had no interest in the '073 or `724 Patents, and that the assignment documents filed with the USPTO were "forged, invalid, void, of no force and effect." Id. at ¶ 18; see also Exhibit B to Zandian's Motion to Dismiss, dated 11/16/11 on file herein.

Due to Zandian's acts, title to the Patents was clouded and interfered with Plaintiff s and OTG's ability to license the Patents. Id, at ¶ 19. In addition, during the period of time Mr. Margolin worked to correct record title of the Patents in the Arizona action and with the USPTO, he incurred significant litigation and other costs associated with those efforts. Id. at 20.

-4-

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 11, 2009, and the Complaint was personally served on Zandian on February 2, 2010, and on Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation on March 21, 2010. Zandian's answer to Plaintiffs Complaint was due on February 22, 2010, but Zandian did not answer the Complaint or respond in any way. Default was entered against Zandian on December 2, 2010, and Plaintiff 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.

The answers of Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation, were due on March 8, 2010, but Defendants did not answer the Complaint or respond in any way. Default was entered against Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation on December 2, 2010. Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Entry of Default on the corporate entities on December 7, 2010 and on their last known attorney on December 16, 2010.

The defaults were set aside and Zandian's motion to dismiss was denied on August 3, 2011. On September 27, 2011, this Court ordered that service of process against all Defendants may be made by publication. As manifested by the affidavits of service, filed herein on November 7, 2011, all Defendants were duly served by publication by November 2011.

On February 21, 2012, the Court denied Zandian's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On March 5, 2012, Zandian served a General Denial to the Amended Complaint, On March 13, 2012, the corporate Defendants served a General Denial to the Amended Complaint.

On June 28, 2012, this Court issued an order requiring the corporate Defendants to retain counsel and that counsel enter an appearance on behalf of the corporate Defendants by July 15, 2012. The June 28, 2012 order further provided that if no such appearance was entered, the corporate Defendants' General Denial would be stricken. Since no appearance

-5-

was entered on behalf of the corporate Defendants, a default was entered against them on September 24, 2012. A notice of entry of default judgment was filed and served on November 6, 2012.

On July 16, 2012, Mr. Margolin served Zandian with Mr. Margolin's First Set of Requests for Admission, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, but Zandian never responded to these discovery requests. As such, on December 14, 2012, Mr. Margolin filed and served a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to NRCP 37. In this Motion, Mr. Margolin requested this Court strike the General Denial of Zandian, and award Mr. Margolin his fees and costs incurred in bringing the Motion.

On January 15, 2013, this Court issued an order striking the General Denial of Zandian and awarding his fees and costs incurred in bringing the NRCP 37 Motion. A default was entered against Zandian on March 28, 2013, and a notice of entry of default judgment was filed and served on April 5, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, Mr. Margolin filed an Application for Default Judgment, which was served on Zandian and the corporate Defendants. Since Zandian did not respond to the Application for Default Judgment, a Default Judgment was entered on June 24, 2013. Notice of entry of the Default Judgment was served on Zandian on June 26, 2013 and filed on June 27, 2013.

Over five and a half months later, on December 19, 2013, Zandian served his Motion to Set Aside on Plaintiff, Zandian's Motion to Set Aside claims that he never received any written discovery or notice of the pleadings and papers filed in this matter after his counsel withdrew as his former counsel provided an erroneous last known address to the Court and the parties when he withdrew, and therefore Zandian requests that the judgment be set aside.

On February 6, 2014, the Court entered an Order denying Zandian's request to set aside the judgment. The Court found that Zandian failed to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect pursuant to NRCP 60(b) and that "Zandian had every opportunity to properly defend this action and instead made a voluntary choice not to." See Order, dated 2/6/14 at 9:14-17.

-6-

Also, on December 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed the subject motion for judgment debtor examination and to produce documents. Zandian failed to file any opposition to the motion for debtor's examination. Accordingly, on January 13, 2014, the Court granted the motion for debtor examination and to produce documents. On January 16, 2014, Plaintiff served Zandian with notice of entry of the Court's order granting the debtor's examination and the production of documents prior thereto. See Notice of Entry of Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Debtor Examination and to Produce Documents, dated 1/16/14, on file herein; see also Exhibit 3, Email, dated 1/16/14, Nancy Lindsley (Plaintiff's counsel) to Lauren Kidd (Zandian's counsel), which included a copy of the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Debtor's Examination and to Produce Documents and the Notice of Entry of that order.

On February 10, 2014, Zandian's counsel informed Plaintiff's counsel that Zandian "is currently in the middle east on business" and "will not be able to attend the debtor's examination" tomorrow morning in front of Judge Russell. Zandian's counsel also informed Plaintiffs counsel on February 10, 2014, that no documents have been produced regarding the debtor's examination allegedly "due to the short amount of time provided." See Exhibit 2.

III.  Legal Argument

NRS 1.210(3) states that "[t]he Court has the power to compel obedience to its orders." NRS 22.010(3) provides that the "refusal to abide by a lawful order issued by the Court is contempt." See also Matter of Water Rights of Humboldt River, 118 Nev. 901, 907, 59 P.3d 1226, 1229-30 (2002) (noting that the district court generally has particular knowledge of whether contemptible conduct occurred and thus its decisions regarding contempt are given deference).

"Courts have inherent power to enforce their decrees through civil contempt proceedings, and this power cannot be abridged by statute." In re Determination of Relative Rights of Claimants & Appropriators of Waters of Humboldt River Stream Sys. & Tributaries, 118 Nev. 901, 909, 59 P.3d 1226, 1231 (2002) (citing Noble v. Noble, 86 Nev. 459, 463, 470 P.2d 430, 432 (1970). "A civil contempt order may be used to compensate the contemnor's

-7-

adversary for costs incurred because of the contempt." Id. (citing State, Dept Indus. Rel. v. Albanese, 112 Nev. 851, 856, 919 P.2d 1067, 1070-71 (1996)).

"[D]istrict judges are afforded broad discretion in imposing sanctions" and the Nevada Supreme Court "will not reverse the particular sanctions imposed absent a showing of abuse of discretion." State, Dept of Indus. Relations, Div. of Indus. Ins. Regulation v. Albanese, 112 Nev. 851, 856, 919 P.2d 1067, 1070 (1996) (citing Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 92, 787 P.2d 777, 779 (1990)).

"Generally, an order for civil contempt must be grounded upon one's disobedience of an order that spells out 'the details of compliance in clear, specific and unambiguous terms so that such person will readily know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed on him."' Southwest Gas Corp. v. Flintkote Co., 99 Nev. 127, 131, 659 P.2d 861, 864 (1983) (quoting Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex. 1967)). "[A] sanction for '[c]ivil contempt is characterized by the court's desire to ... compensate the contemnor's adversary for the injuries which result from the noncompliance."' Albanese, 112 Nev. at 856, 919 P.2d at 1071 (citing In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir.1987) (citations omitted)). "However, an award to an opposing party is limited to that party's actual loss." United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U. S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 701, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); Shuffler v. Heritage Bank, 720 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 198 3); Falstaff, 702 F.2d at 779.

The undisputed facts are crystal clear that Zandian violated this Court's debtor's examination Order by failing to produce the documents one week prior to the debtor's examination and by failing to appear at the debtor's examination, after he was served with the Order requiring the same. Supra. There can be no justification for Zandian's actions. The full damages to Plaintiff from Zandian's conduct and contempt for this Court cannot be measured.

Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court issue an order to show cause why Zandian should not be held in contempt. Plaintiff further requests that the Court hold Zandian in contempt and award an appropriate compensatory sanction, both to coerce Zandian's compliance with the debtor's examination Order as well as compensate Plaintiff for his damages. Plaintiff also respectfully requests that he be awarded his attorney fees and costs

-8-

associated with bringing the motion for debtor's examination and this motion for order to show cause regarding contempt. If the Court deems that such an award of attorney fees and costs is warranted, Plaintiff will file a subsequent affidavit and cost memorandum.

IV. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt.

AFFIRMATION 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 12th day of February, 2014.

BY: ____________________________

Matthew D. Francis (6978)

Adam P. McMillen (10678)

WATSON ROUNDS

5371 Kietzke Lane

Reno, NV 89511

Telephone: 775-324-4100

Facsimile: 775-333-8171

Attorneys for Plaintiff Margolin

-9-

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, MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING CONTEMPT, addressed as follows:

Johnathon Fayeghi, Esq.

Hawkins Melendrez

9555 Hillwood Dr., Suite 150

Las Vegas, NV 89134

Counsel for Reza Zandian

Optima Technology Corp. A California corporation

8401 Bonita Downs Road

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

Optima Technology Corp. A Nevada corporation

8401 Bonita Downs Road

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

Optima Technology Corp. A California corporation

8775 Costa Verde Blvd. #501

San Diego, CA 92122

Optima Technology Corp. A Nevada corporation

8775 Costa Verde Blvd. #501

San Diego, CA 92122

Dated: February  12th, 2014.

_________________

Nancy R. Lindsley

-10-