{My index from http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=61022 and some of my comments. JM}
|
Case Information: |
82559 |
|
Short Caption: |
ZANDIAN VS. MARGOLIN |
|
Court: |
Supreme Court |
|
Related Case(s): |
65205, 65960, 69372 |
|
Lower Court Case(s): |
Carson City - First Judicial District - 09OC005791B |
|
Classification: |
Civil Appeal - General - Other |
|
Case Status: |
Remittitur Issued/Case Closed |
|
Panel Assigned: |
En Banc |
|
Submission Date |
02/16/2022 |
|
How Submitted |
On Briefs |
Party Information
|
Role |
Party Name |
Represented By |
|
Appellant |
Reza Zandian |
Mark R. Forsberg (Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd.) |
|
Respondent |
Jed Margolin |
Matthew D. Francis (Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP/Reno) |
Docket Entries
|
Date |
Type |
Description |
Document |
|
03/01/2021 |
Filing Fee |
Filing Fee due for Appeal. Filing fee will be forwarded by the District Court. (SC)
|
|
|
03/01/2021
|
Notice of Appeal Documents (Zandian)
|
Filed Notice of Appeal/Proper Person. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. (SC)
Zandian is appealing the Order granting my Motion to Void Deeds, etc filed May 3, 2016.
1. He is appealing an order granting a motion that he did not oppose.
2. His appeal is non-statutory because it does not meet the requirements under NRAP 3A.
3. He filed his appeal a day late.
This is Zandian’s fourth appeal in this case. In the first two appeals Zandian lost and the District Court was affirmed. Zandian’s third appeal was dismissed for being non-statutory.
|
(html)
|
|
03/01/2021
|
Notice/Outgoing (Court)
|
Issued Notice Regarding Deadlines. (SC)
|
|
|
03/02/2021
|
Filing Fee (Court)
|
Filing Fee Paid. $250.00 from Niloofar Foughani. Check no. 155. (SC)
Niloofar Foughani is his wife. Why didn’t Zandian pay it himself?
|
|
|
03/11/2021
|
Transcript Request (Court)
|
Filed Certificate That No Transcript is Being Requested. (SC)
|
|
|
03/11/2021
|
Docketing Statement (Zandian)
|
Filed Docketing Statement Civil Appeals. (SC)
Zandian cites the interlocutory order issued by U.S. Bankruptcy Court which that court ordered vacated as void ab initio when Canet’s fraudulent Chapter 15 case was dismissed with prejudice. It was fraudulent because under French law, judgments, even bankruptcy judgments like the 1998 French Action, are not collectible after 10 years. And Canet admitted that he had filed his Chapter 15 as a result of being contacted by Zandian. |
(html)
|
|
03/12/2021
|
Notice/Incoming (Margolin)
|
Filed Notice of Appearance (Matthew D. Francis and Arthur A. Zorio of the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, hereby enter their appearance as counsel for Respondent). (SC)
|
|
|
03/16/2021
|
Notice of Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed District Court Docket Entries. (SC)
|
|
|
03/16/2021 |
Order/Procedural (Court) |
Filed Order Directing Transmission of Record. Record due: 30 days. (SC)
|
|
|
03/19/2021 |
Notice/Incoming (Zandian) |
Filed Substitution of Attorneys, Rich Oshinski for Appellant. (SC)
|
|
|
03/22/2021
|
Notice of Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Copy of District Court Docket Entries. (SC)
|
|
|
03/26/2021
|
Order/Procedural (Court)
|
Filed Order Regarding counsel and Referring to Settlement Program. Attorneys Rick Oshinski and Mark Forsberg have filed a substitution of counsel purporting to substitute themselves as counsel in place of appellant. The substitution is construed as a notice of appearance and approved. The clerk shall add Mr. Oshinski and Mr. Forsberg as counsel of record for appellant.
As all parties to this appeal are now represented by counsel, this matter is referred to this court's settlement program. (SC)
|
(html)
|
|
03/30/2021
|
Settlement Notice (Court)
|
Issued Notice: Exemption from Settlement Program. It has been determined that this appeal will not be assigned to the settlement program. Appellant: 14 days transcript request form; 120 days opening brief. (SC)
At the mandatory mediation session that was held as a result of Zandian’s first appeal Zandian started off by saying that he would “spend $10M to make sure Margolin doesn’t get a nickel.” It was a short meeting. After the meeting I told my attorneys, “Great. Now we know that Zandian has $10M.”
Unfortunately, because Zandian said this at a mediation session it cannot be used in any court of law.
Fortunately, this blog is not a court of law.
|
|
|
04/05/2021
|
Transcript Request (Zandian) |
Filed Certificate of No Transcript. (SC)
|
|
|
04/16/2021
|
Motion (Court)
|
Filed Motion For an Extension of Time to File Trial Court Record (First Judicial District Court Clerk's Office). (SC)
|
|
These are all of the documents in the case in the District Court (the Carson City Court). There are over 3500 pages.
For an Index to the Record on Appeal (probably not exactly complete) Click Here.
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL I OF XV 21-11364:
ROA # 1 - 250
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL II OF XV
ROA # 251 - 499
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL III OF XV
ROA # 500 - 750
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL IV OF XV
ROA # 751 - 1001
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL V OF XV
ROA # 1002 - 1250
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL VI OF XV
ROA # 1251 - 1502
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL VII OF XV
ROA # 1503 - 1750
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL VIII OF XV
ROA # 1751 - 2000
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL IX OF XV
ROA # 2001 - 2250
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL X OF XV
ROA # 2251 - 2523 |
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL XI OF XV
ROA # 2524 - 2751
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL XII OF XV
ROA # 2752 - 2999
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL XIII OF XV
ROA # 3000 - 3250
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL XIV OF XV
ROA # 3251 - 3505
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Record on Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Record on Appeal 09OC00579 -MARGOLIN ROA VOL XV OF XV
ROA # 3506 - 3554
|
|
|
04/20/2021
|
Order/Procedural (Court)
|
Filed Order Granting Motion and Regarding Appendix. The motion of the clerk of the district court for an extension of time to file the record on appeal is granted. The trial court record was filed on April 20, 2021. Because the trial court record has been filed in this appeal, the parties may, but are not required, to cite to that record in lieu of filing joint or separate appendices with their briefs. (SC) |
|
|
04/23/21
|
Notice of Appeal Documents (Court)
|
Filed Copy of District Court Docket Entries. (SC)
|
|
|
6/4/2021
|
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Motion to Take Judicial Notice (NRAP 27(a)(1)). (SC)
This was filed by Zandian’s new attorneys OSHINSKI & FORSBERG, LTD. who are representing him for free. I think this is mostly Mark Forsberg.
It is clear now that Zandian’s appeal is a Trojan Horse Appeal. It has nothing to do with the District Court’s Order granting my Motion to Void Deeds, etc.
Forsberg wants the Supreme Court to take Judicial Notice of the interlocutory order issued by U.S. Bankruptcy Court which he admits that court had ordered vacated as void ab initio.
Forsberg outright lied when he said that the interlocutory order had voided my Default Judgment against Zandian. Zandian appealed the Default Judgment to the Nevada Supreme Court and lost; the District Court was affirmed. USBC did not (and can not) void a decision of the Nevada Supreme Court.
And one of the cases Forsberg cited in his argument is Mack v. Estate of Mack. Was this about an interlocutory Order that had been vacated by the court that had issued it?. No, in Mack the Court took judicial notice that Darren Mack had been convicted of murdering his wife and shooting the judge. Forsberg didn’t mention that. Apparently he considers the two rationales the same. Does anyone else find Forsberg’s actions here reprehensible?
There is a concept in Arizona tort law that speaks to the acts of an “an evil hand guided by an evil mind.” (See Rawlings v. Apodaca, 151 Ariz. 149 (1986), 726 P.2d 565.) Zandian’s evil mind has guided many evil hands during this case which started almost 12 years ago in the Carson City Court. Forsberg’s hand is now one of them.
|
(html)
|
|
06/09/2021
|
Motion (Margolin)
|
Filed Motion to Dismiss Appeal Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Appellant's Untimely Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction
Zandian missed the deadline for filing his appeal.
|
(html)
|
|
06/10/2021
|
Order/Clerk's (Court, Margolin)
|
Filed Order Granting Extension Per Telephonic Request. Respondent's response to appellant's motion to take judicial notice due: June 25, 2021. (SC)
|
|
|
06/23/2021
|
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appellant's Untimely Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction (REJECTED PER NOTICE ISSUED 06/23/21). (SC)
|
(This is what was rejected for being late) |
|
06/23/2021
|
Notice/Outgoing (Court, Zandian)
|
Issued Notice of Rejection of Filed Document. Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appellant's Untimely Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction. (SC)
Forsberg missed the deadline for opposing our Motion to Dismiss. That means our Motion to Dismiss should have been granted.
|
(html)
|
|
06/23/2021
|
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss. (SC)
Forsberg says he has no excuse for missing the deadline but that in the interests of Justice his Opposition should be accepted anyway.
There is a Warrant out for Zandian’s arrest for Contempt issued by the Carson City Court. If Forsberg really was interested in Justice he would surrender his client to the Carson City Sheriff.
|
(html)
|
|
06/24/2021
|
Motion (Margolin)
|
Filed Respondent's Opposition to Appellant's Motion to Take Judicial Notice (NRAP 27(a)(1)). (SC)
“The only proper issue before this Court is whether Honorable Judge Russell erred in granting Respondent Margolin’s unopposed Motion to Void Deeds, which he did not. FJDCR 3.8 is entitled “[t]ime for filing opposition” and states as follows: “[u]nless otherwise ordered by the court, an opposing party will have 14 days after service of the motion to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. The failure of an opposing party to timely file a memorandum of points and authorities shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.” Id. (emphasis added); DCR 13(3). Again, Appellant never opposed Respondent Margolin’s Motion to Void Deeds.
This Court should not accept Appellant’s invitation to review issues and arguments that were not litigated in the Motion to Void Deeds in the case below and which were dismissed with prejudice by the USBC. Appellant’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice of documents supporting such issues and arguments should be denied.”
|
(html)
|
|
06/25/2021
|
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Response to Motion Appellant's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss [Zandian Opposition to Margolin Motion to Dismiss]
Forsberg argues that Zandian filed his appeal on time. His evidence is his Declaration in which he declares (under penalty of perjury) that he has personal knowledge of things that Zandian allegedly did but which he (Forsberg) cannot possibly have personal knowledge of.
There is no Declaration by Zandian.
|
(html)
|
|
6/29/2021
|
Order/Procedural (Court, Zandian)
|
Filed Order Granting Motion. Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file a response to respondent's motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. The opposition was filed on June 25, 2021. Respondent shall have 7 days from the date of this order to file and serve any reply in support of the motion. (SC)
So much for Justice.
|
(html)
|
|
06/30/2021
|
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Reply to Respondent's Opposition to Motion to Take Judicial Notice (NRAP 27(a)(4)). (SC)
The heading for his Section 3 is:
3. The Fact that Appellant Did Not Oppose Respondent’s Motion Below is Not Relevant to Whether this Court Should Take Judicial Notice.
Forsberg admits that Zandian did not oppose our Motion to Void Deeds, etc, but the Court should ignore that inconvenient fact (and legal rule).
And there is a strict limit for the number of pages allowed for a Reply: 5 pages not including the Certificate of Service. NRAP 27(d)(2):
(2) Page Limits. A motion or a response to a motion shall not exceed 10 pages, unless the court permits or directs otherwise. A reply to a response shall not exceed 5 pages.
{Emphasis added}
Forsberg exceeded the page limit so the entire Reply should be stricken or, if he is lucky, only page 6.
|
(html)
|
|
06/30/2021
|
Motion (Margolin)
|
Filed Respondent's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appellant's Untimely Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction. (SC)
In addition to everything else:
Even if Appellant’s unsupported facts and unauthenticated documents are considered, they are not credible. As just one example, in Appellant’s Opposition to Respondent Margolin’s Motion to Dismiss, Appellant represents that he served his Notice of Appeal via email from France and via UPS from Santa Ana, California on February 23, 2021. Opp. Motion Dismiss, pp. 2-3, Exhibits 1 and 3. Specifically, the certificate of service attached to his Notice of Appeal shows that Appellant Zandian allegedly served undersigned counsel via mail from Paris, France: “6 Rue Edouard Fourier, 75116, Paris, France” on February 23, 2021. Opp. Motion Dismiss, Exhibit 1 at p. 5. To the contrary, the UPS label Appellant presented to this Court originated at a UPS Store in California and shows Appellant Zandian’s address as “15 McCarthur Place, Apt 507 Santa Ana, CA 92707.” Opp. Motion Dismiss, Exhibit 3. In Zandian’s “Informal Brief,” he states that he is a resident of France. 15 ROA at 3543. It is physically impossible for Zandian to have served his Notice of Appeal from France and Santa Ana, California on the same day. Thus, even if Appellant’s far-fetched claims were properly before this Court in a declaration or affidavit made with personal knowledge – which they are not -such claims are not credible and should be rejected by this Court.
And my attorneys did everything in only 5 pages.
It occurs to me:
1. When Zandian unsuccessfully tried to bribe my attorney he said he was living in Iran. If he is still living in Iran he could not have mailed/sent anything from France or California.
2. There is a Warrant out for Zandian’s arrest. He would have been taking a big risk If he had been in California.
3. When people come into this country doesn’t Homeland Security check to see if there are outstanding warrants for them?
If Zandian is using yet another alias, and you know what it is, let me know.
|
(html)
|
|
07/27/2021
|
Order/Clerk's (Court, Zandian)
|
Filed Order Granting Telephonic Extension. Appellant's Opening Brief and Appendix due: August 11, 2021. (SC)
Did anyone really expect Forsberg to make the original deadline? He only had 120 days to do it.
|
|
|
07/30/2021
|
Order/Procedural (Court, Margolin)
|
Filed Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that it was untimely filed. Appellant opposes the motion and respondent has replied. The motion to dismiss this appeal as untimely is denied. (SC)
|
|
|
07/30/2021
|
Order/Procedural (Court, Zandian)
|
Filed Order Denying Motion. Appellant as filed a motion asking that this court take judicial notice of documents in a related bankruptcy case. The motion is denied. (SC)
|
(html)
|
|
08/11/2021
|
Brief (Zandian) |
Filed Opening Brief Appellant's Opening Brief |
(html) |
|
09/07/2021
|
Order/Clerk's |
Filed Order Granting Extension Per Telephonic Request. Respondent's answering brief due: September 24, 2021. (SC) |
|
|
09/22/2021
|
Motion (Margolin) |
Filed Motion |
|
|
09/22/2021
|
Brief (Margolin)
|
Filed Answering Brief
1. Zandian’s appeal is non-statutory, just like his last appeal. NRAP 3A(B)(8)
2. Zandian is appealing an order granting a motion that he did not oppose. DCR 13(3)
3. Zandian is raising arguments for the first time in his Appeal. That is a no-no. Kahn v. Dodds (In re AMERCO Derivative Litigation), 127 Nev. 196 252 P.3d 681 Indeed, all of his arguments are being made for the first time in his appeal.
|
(html)
|
|
09/29/2021
|
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Take Judicial Notice. (SC) |
(html) |
|
09/30/2021
|
Motion (Margolin)
|
Filed Reply to Response
|
(html)
|
|
10/19/2021
|
Order/Clerk's
|
Filed Order Granting Extension Per Telephonic Request. Appellant's reply brief due: November 5, 2021. (SC)
|
|
|
10/21/2021
|
Order/Procedural
|
Filed Order Denying Motion. Respondent has filed a motion asking that this court take judicial notice of five affidavits of judgment filed in the district court after the docketing of this appeal. The motion is denied. (SC)
“This court will disregard any reference to the affidavits of judgment within the parties briefs.” |
|
|
11/4/2021
|
Brief (Zandian)
|
Filed Reply Brief Appellant's Reply Brief |
(html) |
|
11/4/2021
|
Notice/Outgoing (Court)
|
Issued Notice of Rejection of Deficient Brief. Corrected brief due: 5 days.
TO: Oshinski & Forsberg, Ltd. \ Mark R. Forsberg
The brief you filed is being rejected for the following reason(s):
Footnotes are not in the same size and typeface as the body of the brief. NRAP 32(a)(5) Attorney's certificate is required. NRAP 28.2
Please correct the deficiencies and re-file the brief within 5 days of the date of this notice.
DATE: November 04, 2021 Elizabeth A. Brown, Clerk of Court
|
(html)
|
|
11/5/2021
|
Brief (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Reply Brief. (SC)
1. Forsberg failed to address DCR 13(3) which states that the “[f]ailure of the opposing party to serve and file his written opposition may be construed as an admission that the motion is meritorious and a consent to granting the same.” He conflates that with his argument that the court should allow him to make arguments for the first time on Appeal.
2. In 21-30320 the Court said, “This court will disregard any reference to the affidavits of judgment within the parties briefs.” Forsberg referenced the affidavits anyway. In several places.
3. Forsberg continues to cite Secured Holdings, an unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals. The way NRAP 36(c)(3) applies here is, “... unpublished dispositions issued by the Court of Appeals may not be cited in any Nevada court for any purpose.”
4. Forsberg states that ”B. Appellant is Not Challenging the Default Judgment Itself.” Yet he wants the entire Order Granting Motion to Void Deeds, Assign Property, For Writ of Execution, and to Convey reversed. He failed to address the issue of Zandian’s fraudulent assignments of his properties to his family members even though the Motion that was granted starts with Motion to Void Deeds.
5. Forsberg cites Bradley v. Romeo selectively:
Respondent argues that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Respondent’s motion to void deeds because Appellant did not oppose it in the district court and should not be allowed to raise the argument on appeal. However, this is the kind of case and the kind of circumstances in which this Court previously has considered an appeal notwithstanding the failure of the appellant to articulate the basis for the appeal in the district court. For example, in Bradley v. Romeo, 102 Nev. 103, 716 P.2d 227 (1986), this Court stated:
The ability of this court to consider relevant issues sua sponte in order to prevent plain error is well established. See, e.g., Western Indus., Inc. v. General Ins. Co., 91 Nev. 222, 230, 533 P.2d 473, 478 (1975). Such is the case where a statute which is clearly controlling was not applied by the trial court.
He left out the next paragraph:
Romeo requests a new trial to present additional defenses to enforcement of the note. However, an examination of the defenses relied upon reveals that they either lack merit as a matter of law or have been waived due to Romeo's failure to pursue them at trial.
Why is Forsberg being allowed to practice law at all, much less before the Nevada Supreme Court?
6. Forsberg’s theme is that the Order Granting Motion to Void Deeds, etc. should be reversed in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Let’s talk about justice.
a. Zandian stole several of my U.S. Patents in December 2007 by fraudulently filing documents with the U.S. Patent Office.
b. I sued Zandian in the Carson City Court in December 2009.
c. Zandian did not present an affirmative defense.
d. Zandian caused me considerable delay and expense. My Default Judgment against him was not issued until June 2013.
e. Zandian refused to pay me.
f. Zandian refused to obey the Order of the Carson City Court to Produce Documents with the result that there is a Warrant out for his arrest for Contempt of Court. Zandian fled the country and even now is a fugitive from justice.
g. Zandian fraudulently conveyed his Nevada properties to his family members in an attempt to avoid my Judgment against him.
h. Zandian conspired with French attorney Patrick Canet to file a fraudulent Chapter 15 Petition in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
If Forsberg wants justice he should start by surrendering Zandian to the Carson City Sheriff.
-JM-
|
(html)
|
|
11/5/2021
|
Case Status Update (Court)
|
Briefing Completed/To Screening. (SC) |
|
|
02/16/2022
|
Order/Procedural (Court) |
Filed Order Submitting for Decision Without Oral Argument. (SC) |
|
|
02/16/2022
|
Order/Dispositional (Court)
|
Filed Order Dismissing Appeal. "ORDER this appeal DISMISSED." NNP22-AS/EC/KP (SC)
Zandian loses again. He is 0 for 4 in his appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The Nevada Supreme Court did not have to go any further than to say:
Respondent directly challenges the appealability of the enforcement order under any statute or rule. Appellant responds that the order is appealable as a special order after final judgment (SOAFJ) under NRAP 3A(b)(2). But, as appellant acknowledges, to be appealable as an SOAFJ, an order must "affect[ ] the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered." Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 914, 59 P.3d 1220, 1221 (2002). Accordingly, post judgment orders that do not affect rights already incorporated in a judgment are not appealable as SOAFJs. Murray v. A Cab Taxi Serv. LLC, No. 81641, 2020 WL 6585946(Nev. November 9, 2020)(Order Dismissing Appeal). And here, Margolin's right to execute on his default judgment arises from the default judgment itself, not the subsequent enforcement order. Appellant having effectively conceded that no other statute or rule specifically provides for an appeal from the enforcement order, see Colton v. Murphy, 71 Nev. 71, 72, 279 P.2d 1036, 1036 (1955) (holding that a failure to challenge a point raised on appeal "constitutes a clear concession by appellants that there is merit in respondents position"), we therefore
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
|
(html)
|
|
02/24/2022 |
Motion (Margolin) |
Filed Respondent's NRAP 38 Motion for Sanctions. (SC) |
(html)
|
|
03/03/2022 |
Motion (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Response to Respondent's NRAP 38 Motion for Sanctions. (SC) |
(html) |
|
03/03/2022
|
Post-Judgment Petition (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Petition for Rehearing. (SC)
Petitions for Rehearing come under NRAP Rule 40. Click Here.
1. Look at Rule 40(c)(1):
(1) Matters presented in the briefs and oral arguments may not be reargued in the petition for rehearing, and no point may be raised for the first time on rehearing.
2. Through some sleight of hand Forsberg has miss-stated the law under Gumm v. Mainor from (my words):
In order to be appealable a District Court Post-Judgment Order must affect the rights of a party under the Final Judgment.
to:
In order to be appealable an Appeal must affect the rights of a party under the Final Judgment.
If that were true then all appeals would be statutory. And it is a new argument in the case.
3. Forsberg continues to cite Secured Holdings which is an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals that cannot be used in support of Appellant’s arguments. NRAP 36(c)(3). And even if Secured Holdings was considered, that case supports me, not Zandian.
4. Forsberg cites for the first time in his appeal: Davidson v. Davidson, 382 P.3d 880, 882 (Nev. 2016). That is also a new argument.
5. Forsberg reargues matters already argued in the briefs and raises points for the first time in his petition. See Rule 40(g):
(g) Sanctions. Petitions for rehearing which do not comply with this Rule may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions.
|
(html)
|
|
03/03/2022
|
Filing Fee
|
Filing fee paid. E-Payment $150.00 from Mark R. Forsberg. (SC) |
|
|
03/08/2022
|
Order/Clerk's
|
Filed Order Granting Telephonic Extension. Respondent shall have until March 24, 2022, to file and serve a reply in support of his motion for sanctions filed on February 24, 2022. (SC)
|
|
|
03/22/2022 |
Motion (Margolin) |
Filed Reply to Response |
(html)
|
|
03/23/2022
|
Post-Judgment Order
|
Filed Order Denying Rehearing. "Rehearing Denied." NRAP 40(c). fn1 [Respondent's motion for sanctions pursuant to NRAP 38 is denied.] (SC)
It is all over except for the Remittitur sending it back to the Carson City Court.
|
(html)
|
|
04/05/2022
|
Order/Clerk's
|
Filed Order Granting Telephonic Extension. Appellant's Petition for En Banc Reconsideration due: April 20, 2022. (SC)
I was wrong. It isn’t over yet. Forsberg filed a Petition for En Banc Reconsideration. And he got an extension of time to do it.
Petitions for En Banc Reconsideration are covered under NRAP Rule 40A. Click Here.
Zandian’s Appeal started out as a Trojan Horse Appeal to void my Judgment against him. Now it is a Dracula Appeal. Every time you think it is finally dead it comes back.
|
|
|
04/20/2022
|
Post-Judgment Petition (Zandian)
|
Filed Appellant's Petition for En Banc Reconsideration. (SC)
If it looks familiar it is because Forsberg took his Petition For Rehearing above, tweaked it and added some fluff.
I made a file comparing the two. It is in an MS Word file. Click Here. I was not able to come up with a way to make the lines match independent of the width of the viewer’s window. If the lines are too far off try changing the width of your window.
My comments are the same as for his Petition For Rehearing. But I noticed another major flaw in his Petition. In the last sentence in his Conclusion he says:
If, as the Court of Appeals has held, an aggrieved party cannot obtain writ relief from a judgment lien not perfected in accordance with NRS 17.150(4), and this Court lacks jurisdiction if the rights of the parties set forth in the judgment itself are not modified by the post-judgment order, a party wishing to challenge an improperly perfected lien on the basis of the statute would have no remedy at all, a result inconsistent with the Court’s previous jurisprudence.
That is not true. A party wishing to challenge an alleged improperly perfected lien can challenge it in the District Court. Zandian did not do that. He did not oppose our Motion to Void Deeds, etc. in the District Court. That was his remedy, he failed to take it.
Even before that, when we moved for our first Writs of Execution (starting at 9 ROA 2244) he did oppose it (10 ROA 2307 - 2312) but he did not argue NRS 17.150 . He failed to take the remedy when it was available to him. Note that his attorney at the time was Jason Woodbury of Kaempfer Crowell. Later on Mr. Woodbury had to leave the case when he was elected Carson City District Attorney. If Zandian’s NRS 17.150 argument has any merit then surely Mr. Woodbury would have made it.
And Zandian has another remedy. Pay the Judgment.
|
(html)
|
|
05/04/2022
|
Post-Judgment Order
|
Filed Order Denying En Banc Reconsideration. Having considered the petition on file herein, we have concluded that en banc reconsideration is not warranted. NRAP 40A. Accordingly, we "ORDER the petition DENIED." EN BANC (SC)
|
|
|
06/01/2022
|
Remittitur |
Issued Remittitur. (SC) |
(html) |
|
06/01/2022
|
Case Status Update |
Remittitur Issued/Case Closed. (SC) |
|
|
06/10/2022
|
Remittitur
|
Filed Remittitur. Received by County Clerk on June 3, 2022. (SC) |
(html)
|
Zandian’s Appeal is now officially closed and the case is going back to the Carson City Court. Once there I will take more of Zandian’s property from him to satisfy my judgment against him.
He could have avoided losing any of his property if he had paid my Judgment against him in 2013. Now, because of his latest failed appeal (he is 0 for 4 in appeals) he will lose even more property because of the interest on the Judgment that has accrued during this appeal, not to mention all of the other crap he has pulled.
And because of this failed appeal Zandian has created citable case law making it clear that post-judgment orders for executing on a judgment are not appealable as long as they do not affect the rights of the party under the Judgment. The Judgment did not give Zandian any rights. It gave him only the duty to pay me. This applies to everyone, not just Zandian.
Good work, Reza Zandian and his attorney Mark Forsberg.
And note that the Warrant for Zandian’s arrest for contempt issued by the Carson City Court is still in effect.