{ Converted to text using OCR. The PDF is the controlling document. JM}
DOCKETING STATEMENT
CIVIL APPEALS
Filed Mar 11 2021
No. 82559
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
INDICATE FULL CAPTION:
Appellant 1
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 I, REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONOREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOES Companies 1-10, DOE Corporations 11-20, and DOE Individuals 21-30
Respondent 1
JED MARGOLIN, an individual
GENERAL INFORMATION
Appellants must complete this docketing statement in compliance with NRAP 14(a). The purpose of the docketing statement is to assist the Supreme Court in screening jurisdiction, identifying issues on appeal, assessing presumptive assignment to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, scheduling cases for oral argument and settlement conferences, classifying cases for expedited treatment and assignment to the Court of Appeals, and compiling statistical information
.WARNING
This statement must be completed fully, accurately and on time. NRAP 14(c). The Supreme Court may impose sanctions on counsel or appellant if it appears that the information provided is incomplete or inaccurate. Id. Failure to fill out the statement completely or to file it in a timely manner constitutes grounds for the imposition of sanctions, including a fine and/or dismissal of the appeal.
A complete list of the documents that must be attached appears as Question 27 on this docketing statement. Failure to attach all required documents will result in the delay of your appeal and may result in the imposition of sanctions.
This court has noted that when attorneys do not take seriously their obligations under NRAP 14 to complete the docketing statement properly and conscientiously, they waste the valuable judicial resources of this court, making the imposition of sanctions appropriate. See KDI Sylvan Pools v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 344, 810 P.2d 1217, 1220 (1991). Please use tab dividers to separate any attached documents.
1. Judicial District: Carson City Department: I
County: Carson City Judge: Honorable James T. Russell
District Ct. Case No.: 0900005791B
2. Attorney filing this docketing statement:
Attorney: Proper person
Telephone:
+33 6 67 54 04 04
775 430 8110
Firm: Reza Zandian
Address:
6 Rue Edouard Fournier
75116 Paris
France
Client(s): Reza Zandian
If this is a joint statement by multiple appellants, acid the names and addresses of other counsel and the names of their clients on an additional sheet accompanied by a certification that they concur in the filing of this statement.
3. Attorney(s) representing respondents(s):
Attorney: Matthew D. Francis
Firm:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Address:
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, Nevada 89511
Telephone: 775 324 4100
Client(s): Jed Margolin
Nature of disposition below (check all that apply):
[ ] Judgment after bench trial
[ ] Judgment after jury verdict
[ ] Summary judgment
[x] Default judgment
[ ] Grant/Denial of NRCP 60(b) relief
[ ] Grant/Denial of injunction
[ ] Grant/Denial of declaratory relief
[ ] Review of agency determination
[x] Dismissal:
[x] Lack of jurisdiction
[ ] Failure to state a claim
[ ] Failure to prosecute
[x] Other (specify): Dismissal of judgement. Declare judgement null and void. Set aside order to void deeds and convey property.
[ ] Divorce Decree
[ ] Original
[ ] Modification
[ ] Other disposition (specify):
5. Does this appeal raise issues concerning any of the following?
[ ] Child Custody
[ ] Venue
[ ] Termination of parental rights
6. Pending and prior proceedings in this court. List the case name and docket number of all appeals or original proceedings presently or previously pending before this court which are related to this appeal:
Nevada Supreme Court Case Numbers 65960 and 65205
District Court Case Number: 0900005791B
7. Pending and prior proceedings in other courts. List the case name, number and court of all pending and prior proceedings in other courts which are related to this appeal (e.g., bankruptcy, consolidated or bifurcated proceedings) and their dates of disposition:
a. District Court of Nevada (Bankruptcy) Chapter 15 Lead Bankruptcy Case of Gholamreza Zandian Jazi in judicial liquidation in France with Patrick Canet as liquidator and foreign representative
Case Number 3:16-BK-50644
Honorable Judge Bruce T. Beesley
b. Sadri et al v. Margolin et al
Case Number: 3:219-AP05016 (NVB)
c. Patrick Canet v. Sadri
Case Number: 3:19-AP-05025
8. Nature of the action. Briefly describe the nature of the action and the result below:
Appellant is the debtor currently in bankruptcy in France under administration of his liquidator, Patrick Canet.
Any notification, judgement or order shall be directed to the liquidator in France, Patrick Canet. Any violation is contrary to UNCITRAL United Nations Commission on International Trade law and is subject to the international insolvency regulation. Any violation is contrary to the federal law and regulation of the United States.
Therefore the respondent did not have any quality to act and the court does not have any jurisdiction to issue any order.
Further, the judgement and orders are void ab initio since no proper notification ever made to the liquidator, Patrick Canet.
9. Issues on appeal. State concisely the principal issue(s) in this appeal (attach separate sheets as necessary):
The judgement and order are void since the respondent did not strictly comply with the notification and registration requirements of the Nevada Revised Status NRS 17.150(4), which requires the last 4 digits of the judgement debtor to be recorded concurrently with the judgement to create a lien on the properties and assessor parcel numbers must be recorded. There was no notification to the liquidator, and the NRS. 17.150(4) was never respected, and no lien was ever created. (Please see the findings of fact and law summary judgment issued by Honorable Judge Bruce T. Beesley herewith attached dated July 20, 2018).
10. Pending proceedings in this court raising the same or similar issues. If you are aware of any proceedings presently pending before this court which raises the same or similar issues raised in this appeal, list the case name and docket numbers and identify the same or similar issue raised:
a. Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 77248, February 27 2020. WORSNOP v. KARAM. Order of reversal and remand.
b. Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 41716, October 14 2007. LEVEN v. FREY. Order of reversal and remand.
11. Constitutional issues. If this appeal challenges the constitutionality of a statute, and the state, any state agency, or any officer or employee thereof is not a party to this appeal, have you notified the clerk of this court and the attorney general in accordance with NRAP 44 and NRS 30.130?
[x] Yes
[ ] No
If not, explain:
12. Other issues. Does this appeal involve any of the following issues?
[x] Reversal of well-settled Nevada precedent (identify the case(s)):
A. Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 77248, February 27 2020. WORSNOP v. KARAM. Order of reversal and remand.
B. Nevada Supreme Court Case No. 41716, October 14 2007. LEVEN v. FREY. Order of reversal and remand.
And any other case designated by the Supreme Court of Nevada.
[ ] An issue arising under the United States and/or Nevada Constitutions
[x] A substantial issue of first impression
[x] An issue of public policy
[ ] An issue where en bane consideration is necessary to maintain uniformity of this court's decisions
[ ] A ballot question
If so, explain:
A default judgement is given to a patent troll by fraud by the district court, false address, false service (Appellant never lived in Sacramento California. Appellant is in liquidation and lives in France. Center of main interest is in France (COMI)). The court was defrauded by mistake and a $2,700 default judgement against the appellant was converted to a $1,495,000 attorney fee default judgement. Attorneys and previous employees of the appellant and appellant's partners conspired to get the default judgement and execute on the vacant land properties owned by the appellant in Nevada. Their motivation is greed and the Supreme Court is mandated to stop these unlawful practices in Nevada No damage was ever inflicted on the respondent.
13. Assignment to the Court of Appeals or retention in the Supreme Court. Briefly set forth whether the matter is presumptively retained by the Supreme Court or assigned to the Court of Appeals under NRAP 17, and cite the subparagraph(s) of the Rule under which the matter falls. If appellant believes that the Supreme Court should retain the case despite its presumptive assignment to the Court of Appeals, identify the specific issue(s) or circumstance (s) that warrant retaining the case, and include an explanation of their importance or significance:
The appellant is not an attorney and is unaware of all of his rights and refers to the Supreme Court of Nevada and justice to make a final determination of his rights.
14. Trial.
If this action proceeded to trial, how many days did the trial last? Was it a bench or jury trial?
No. Default judgement without any merit.
15. Judicial Disqualification. Do you intend to file a motion to disqualify or have a justice recuse him/herself from participation in this appeal? If so, which Justice?
TIMELINESS OF NOTICE OF APPEAL
16. Date of entry of written judgment or order appealed from: January 25, 2021
If no written judgment or order was filed in the district court, explain the basis for seeking appellate review:
17. Date written notice of entry of judgment or order was served
Respondent failed to notify foreign representative of the appellant, his liquidator, Patrick Canet, in France.
Was service by:
[ ] Delivery
[ ] Mail/electronic/fax
18. If the time for filing the notice of appeal was tolled by a post-judgment motion (NRCP 50(b), 52(b), or 59)
(a) Specify the type of motion, the date and method of service of the motion, and the date of filing.
|
NRCP 50(b) |
Date of filing |
|
|
NRCP 52(b) |
Date of filing |
|
|
NRCP 59 |
Date of filing |
|
NOTE: Motions made pursuant to NRCP 60 or motions for rehearing or reconsideration may toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. See AA Primo Builders v. Washington 126 Nev. 245 P.3d 1190 (2010).
(b) Date of entry of written order resolving tolling motion
(c) Date written notice of entry of order resolving tolling motion was served
Respondent failed to notify foreign representative of the appellant, his liquidator, Patrick Canet, in France.
Was service by:
[ ] Delivery
19. Date notice of appeal filed February 23, 2021 by UPS attached receipt.
If more than one party has appealed from the judgment or order, list the date each notice of appeal was fried and identify by name the party filing the notice of appeal:
20. Specify statute or rule governing the time limit for filing the notice of appeal, e.g., NRAP 4(a) or other
21. Specify the statute or other authority granting this court jurisdiction to review the judgment or order appealed from:
(a)
NRAP (specify)
|
3A(b)(1) |
NRS 38.205 |
|
NRAP |
NRS |
|
3A(b)(2) |
233B. 150 |
|
NRAP |
NRS7O3.376 |
|
3A(b)(3) Other |
|
b) Explain how each authority provides a basis for appeal from the judgment or order:
22. List all parties involved in the action or consolidated actions in the district court:
(a) Parties:
Appellant
OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZAND IAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka GHONOREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOES Companies 1-10, DOE Corporations 11-20, and DOE Individuals 21-30
v.
Respondent
JED MARGOLIN, an individual
(b) If all parties in the district court are not parties to this appeal, explain in detail why those parties are not involved in this appeal, e.g., formally dismissed, not served, or other:
23. Give a brief description (3 to 5 words) of each party's separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims and the date of formal disposition of each claim.
Appeal to void order to void deeds and convey properties dated January 25, 2021.
24. Did the judgment or order appealed from adjudicate ALL the claims alleged below and the rights and liabilities of ALL the parties to the action or consolidated actions below?
[x] Yes
[ ] No
25. If you answered "No" to question 24, complete the following:
(a) Specify the claims remaining pending below:
(b) Specify the parties remaining below:
(c) Did the district court certify the judgment or order appealed from as a final judgment pursuant to NRCP 54(b)?
Yes
No
(d) Did the district court make an express determination, pursuant to NRCP 54(b), that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for the entry of judgment?
Yes
No
26. If you answered "No" to any part of question 25, explain the basis for seeking appellate review (e.g., order is independently appealable under NRAP 3A(b)):
27. Attach file-stamped copies of the following documents:
The latest-filed complaint, counterclaims, cross-claims, and third-party claims
Any tolling motion(s) and order(s) resolving tolling motion(s)
Orders of NRCP 41(a) dismissals formally resolving each claim, counterclaims, cross-claims and/or third-party claims asserted in the action or consolidated action below, even if not at issue on appeal
Any other order challenged on appeal
Notices of entry for each attached order
VERIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury that I have read this docketing statement, that the information provided in this docketing statement is true and complete to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and that I have attached all required documents to this docketing statement.
Name of appellant: Reza Zandian Proper Person
Date: March 10, 2021
6 Rue Edouard Fournier
75116 Paris
France
Signature of Proper Person
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 10 day of March, 20211 served a copy of this completed docketing statement upon all counsel of record:
[ ] By personally serving it upon him/her; or
[x] By mailing it by first class mail with sufficient postage prepaid to the following address(es): (NOTE: If all names and addresses cannot fit below, please list names below and attach a separate sheet with the addresses.)
Attorney for Jed Margolin:
Matthew D. Francis
Telephone: 775 324 4100
Firm: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck
Address:
5371 Kietzke Lane
Reno, Nevada 89511
Dated this 10 day of March, 2021
Signature
Reza Zandian
Exhibit A - Notice of Entry of Order (First Judicial District Court of Nevada)
Exhibit B - Findings of Fact and Law Summary Judgment (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada Doc #60)
[Note. This Interlocutory Order was vacated as void ab initio when Canet’s Chapter 15 case was dismissed with prejudice in USBC’s ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS CHAPTER 15 CASE Doc #116. JM]
Exhibit C - Nevada Supreme Court Case Information for Zandian Vs. Margolin Case # 65960
[Zandian Appeal of the Default Judgment against him. The District Court was affirmed. JM]
.end