United States of America v. Samuel
Filing
44
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/28/2018 RECOMMENDING The 2/17/2016 garnishment order (ECF No. 23 ), including its findings, reasoning, and conclusions, be adopted as a final order of the court, except as to the portions of the order concerning the corporate accounts at Tri Counties Bank; The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively close these garnishment actions. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 28 days after being served with these F & R's.(Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
No. 2:15-mc-16-JAM-KJN
No. 2:15-mc-17-JAM-KJN
No. 2:15-mc-99-JAM-KJN
HODA SAMUEL,
15
Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
16
17
18
19
20
On December 3, 2018, the United States filed a “Notification of Resolution of
21
Defendant’s Bankruptcy Case and Request for Findings and Recommendations for the Three
22
Garnishment Cases Referenced Above.” (ECF No. 46.)1 On December 19, 2018, the United
23
States also submitted proposed findings and recommendations for the court’s consideration.
24
25
26
27
1
These findings and recommendations are cross-docketed in all three related garnishment actions
in the caption above. For simplicity, the court refers to the ECF numbers in Case No. 2:15-mc16-JAM-KJN only throughout the findings and recommendations. All references to defendant’s
underlying criminal case, Case No. 2:10-cr-223-JAM, are referred to by a designated CR ECF
No.
28
1
1
(ECF No. 50.)2 After considering the United States’ request and the record in this action, the
2
court recommends that the requested relief be GRANTED.3
3
BACKGROUND
4
On January 22, 2013, a jury convicted defendant of multiple counts of mail fraud, as well
5
as one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and making false statements in mortgage
6
applications. (Crim. ECF Nos. 315, 429.) On March 21, 2013, the court approved a stipulation
7
for the entry of a personal forfeiture money judgment. (Crim. ECF No. 336.) After a sentencing
8
hearing conducted on August 15, 2013, defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a total term
9
of 120 months, with restitution to be determined at a later hearing. (Crim. ECF Nos. 426, 429.)
10
The August 20, 2013 judgment stated that “[t]he preliminary order for money judgment filed
11
3/21/2013 is hereby made final as to the defendant, and shall be incorporated into the judgment.”
12
(Crim. ECF No. 429.) Following a subsequent restitution hearing on June 27, 2014, an amended
13
judgment was filed on July 3, 2014, and defendant was ordered to pay a $3,100.00 assessment; a
14
$20,000.00 fine; and $3,029,412.64 in restitution, with payment to begin immediately. (Crim.
15
ECF Nos. 595-97.) Defendant appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which ultimately affirmed. (See
16
Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 13-10449, 14-10340.)
17
In an attempt to collect the restitution owed by defendant, the United States sought and
18
obtained the writs of garnishment at issue in these actions. The writs involved accounts and other
19
assets at the following garnishees:
20
////
21
2
22
23
The court has carefully considered the proposed findings and recommendations, which have
been incorporated in part, at times verbatim, into the court’s own findings and recommendations.
Nevertheless, the court’s findings and recommendations are based on the court’s own
independent review of the record.
24
3
25
26
27
28
Defendant has had numerous opportunities, both in the garnishment actions and in the
bankruptcy proceedings, to oppose the United States’ requested relief. In a sense, these findings
and recommendations largely finalize and effectuate issues that had been extensively litigated
previously in the garnishment actions and the bankruptcy case. As such, the court finds it
unnecessary to require a formal response from defendant at this juncture. Nevertheless, the court
grants defendant an extended time to file any objections to the findings and recommendations to
provide defendant with a final opportunity to oppose any of the relief requested.
2
1
(1) Case No. 2:15-mc-16-JAM-KJN: Tri Counties Bank
2
(2) Case No. 2:15-mc-17-JAM-KJN: California Public Employees’ Retirement System
(“CalPERS”)
3
4
(3) Case No. 2:15-mc-99-JAM-KJN: Raymond James Financial Services, Inc.
5
Those writs, and accompanying documentation and instructions, were served on defendant
6
and her spouse, Aiad Samuel. The acknowledgements of service and answers by the garnishees
7
were likewise served on defendant and her spouse. Defendant and her spouse were instructed
8
regarding their right to file objections to the writs and answers by the garnishees, as well as any
9
appropriate claims of exemption. Objections were ultimately filed as to each of the writs.
10
On February 17, 2016, the undersigned issued a comprehensive order resolving
11
defendant’s objections and granting garnishment of several of the accounts at issue. (See ECF
12
No. 20.) That order’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions are incorporated here by reference. In
13
short, the court directed garnishment of the personal accounts at Tri Counties Bank, defendant’s
14
monthly disability retirement benefits at CalPERS, and the SEP IRA at Raymond James Financial
15
Services, Inc. The court also permitted the United States to inspect a safety deposit box at Tri
16
Counties Bank, and required the United States to file supplemental briefing with respect to the
17
corporate accounts at Tri Counties Bank.
18
The United States enforced the garnishment order. Garnishees paid sums due, the United
19
States inspected the safety deposit box, and ultimately abated its garnishment of defendant’s
20
corporate accounts at Tri-Counties Bank.
Defendant and her spouse, Aiad Samuel (collectively “the Samuels”), filed a voluntary
21
22
Chapter 11 bankruptcy case on March 15, 2016. Case No. 16-21585-A-11. The bankruptcy court
23
appointed a Chapter 11 trustee on May 10, 2016 to administer the estate. The United States
24
thereafter obtained an order in this court staying the garnishment actions pending the outcome of
25
the bankruptcy proceedings (ECF No. 35) and pursued judgment enforcement in the bankruptcy
26
case. On September 12, 2016, the United States filed its $3,153,389.02 bankruptcy proof of
27
claim, representing the criminal judgment balance and a $305,251.26 litigation surcharge.
28
////
3
1
According to the United States, for the past 30 months, the trustee has handled the
2
bankruptcy estate, to include liquidating defendant’s assets to pay her and her spouse’s creditors.
3
Through these efforts, overseen and approved by the bankruptcy court, creditors such as the
4
United States (on behalf of defendant’s criminal victims) will receive payment in full of their
5
filed proofs of claim. The trustee’s plan of liquidation, confirmed on September 27, 2018 (the
6
“Plan”), incorporates a stipulation between the trustee and the United States that allows the
7
United States’ proof of claim under the Plan (the “Stipulation”). (See Exhibit A to the
8
Declaration of Kurt A. Didier, ECF No. 46-1.) Pursuant to the Plan, a “Plan Administrator” is
9
administering the remaining assets of the Samuels’ bankruptcy estate.
10
The Stipulation, in summary, addresses the disposition of recovered monies for the
11
judgment balance and litigation surcharge. The judgment balance was $812,652.39 at the time
12
the signatories filed the Stipulation on August 24, 2018. (This balance included money recovered
13
from the three garnishment cases.) Prior to the Stipulation, the United States had received a
14
$950,000 recovery from the Chapter 11 trustee’s sale of the Samuels’ Rio Linda shopping center
15
(held under the Samuels’ wholly owned limited liability company, St. Mena and St. Marcorious,
16
LLC). The district court clerk presently holds the $950,000. Application of the $950,000
17
recovery to the criminal judgment pursuant to the Plan and Stipulation yields a $137,347.61
18
surplus (aka an “overpayment” in the US Courts Case Inquiry Report), which the Stipulation
19
signatories agree should be returned to the Plan Administrator as property of the Samuels’ estate.4
20
The United States agreed in the Stipulation to seek an order from the United States District Court
21
authorizing the Clerk of Court to pay the $137,347.61 surplus to the Chapter 11 trustee/Plan
22
Administrator.
23
24
Regarding the litigation surcharge, the bankruptcy court-approved Plan and Stipulation
authorize a $284,813.77 surcharge payment to the United States. The United States already
25
26
27
28
A continuing garnishment of Defendant’s CalPERS retirement account (Case No. 2:15-mc-17)
and Treasury Offset Program payments have increased the overpayment to $140,474.45. Hoda
Samuel is the only defendant entitled to a refund of the overpayment; the United States has
ceased collection activities against her joint and several co-defendants and, to its knowledge, the
co-defendants will receive, or have already received, whatever refunds to which they are entitled.
4
4
1
received $150,000 of the surcharge award, paid also from the proceeds of the shopping center sale
2
referenced above. The United States seeks district court approval for this surcharge award; more
3
specifically, an order allowing the United States to retain the prior $150,000 surcharge payment
4
and authorizing the trustee or Plan Administrator to pay the Department of Justice an additional
5
$134,813.77 from funds reserved to resolve the United States’ proof of claim.
6
With the bankruptcy case resolved, the United States filed the instant request for findings
7
and recommendations to resolve all remaining matters in the district court garnishment actions.
8
DISCUSSION
9
The court addresses each portion of the United States’ requested relief in turn.
10
Adoption of the February 17, 2016 Garnishment Order
11
The United States requests issuance of findings and recommendations to the assigned
12
district judge that the undersigned’s February 17, 2016 garnishment order be adopted as a final
13
order of the court. For the reasons discussed in detail in the February 17, 2016 order, the
14
undersigned so recommends, except as to the portions of the order concerning the corporate
15
accounts at Tri Counties Bank, given that the United States has voluntarily abated its garnishment
16
of those accounts.
17
Litigation Surcharge
18
As noted above, the United States further requests a litigation surcharge.
19
The United States filed the garnishment cases pursuant to the Federal Debt Collection
20
Procedures Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 3001, et seq. (the FDCPA). The FDCPA authorizes the court to
21
award the United States a litigation surcharge in connection with the recovery of a debt. 28
22
U.S.C. § 3011(a). Defendant’s criminal monetary penalties (the assessment, fine and restitution)
23
all constitute “debt” as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 3002(3)(B). The debt recovery action must be one
24
that arises under the FDCPA’s subchapter B (pre-judgment remedies) or C (post-judgment
25
remedies). 28 U.S.C. § 3011(a); United States v. Sackett, 114 F.3d 1050, 1053 (10th Cir. 1997).
26
The government’s garnishment actions here are qualifying post-judgment remedies under 28
27
U.S.C. § 3205. The recoverable surcharge amount is 10% of the debt sought to be collected
28
unless, not applicable here, the United States receives attorney’s fees or the law “pursuant to
5
1
which the action on the claim is based” provides otherwise. 28 U.S.C. § 3011(b).
In this case, each of the United States’ three writs of garnishment sought recovery of the
2
3
10% litigation surcharge. However, the United States notes that it did not initially pursue the
4
surcharge in its applications for final garnishment orders for several reasons. First, the judgment
5
balance at the time was over $3,000,000 and the assets subject to garnishment were undervalued
6
to realize the surcharge at the time of liquidation. Second, the United States knew additional
7
enforcement was necessary before it could consider payment of a surcharge. Finally, the
8
garnishment of the corporate bank accounts in Case No. 2:15-mc-00016 was continued and later
9
stayed when the Samuels filed for bankruptcy protection, leaving open a surcharge award in that
10
case. A surcharge award is proper now given that the criminal judgment is fully paid, funds are
11
available to pay the surcharge, and the confirmed Chapter 11 plan in defendant’s bankruptcy case
12
approved a $284,813.77 surcharge payment to the United States.
13
Therefore, the court recommends that a $284,813.77 litigation surcharge payment to the
14
United States be approved; more specifically, that the United States be permitted to retain the
15
$150,000 payment it received in the bankruptcy case and receive an additional $134,813.77 from
16
funds the Plan Administrator reserved to resolve the United States’ proof of claim.
17
Disposition of Judgment Surplus
18
As stated above in footnote 4, there is a present judgment surplus of $140,474.45. The
19
Stipulation between the Chapter 11 trustee and the United States, and the bankruptcy court-
20
approved Plan, provide that $137,347.61 of the surplus (referenced therein as the “Restitution
21
Surplus”) shall be paid to the trustee or Plan Administrator. (ECF No. 46-1, Ex. A.) Normally,
22
the Clerk of Court refunds a judgment surplus to the defendant who paid the overage. However,
23
here the Samuels are still in a bankruptcy case administered by a Chapter 11 trustee/Plan
24
Administrator. The Restitution Surplus, therefore, is property of the Samuels’ bankruptcy case.
25
11 U.S.C. § 541(a). The Plan provides for allocation and disposition of the Restitution Surplus,
26
including use thereof towards any remaining debtors’ obligations such as fees, expenses, creditor
27
claims, and thereafter, a possible surplus payment to the Samuels.
28
////
6
1
The United States thus requests an order allowing the Clerk of Court to pay the
2
$137,347.61 Restitution Surplus to Scott M. Sackett, Plan Administrator.5 The United States
3
further requests an order authorizing the Clerk of Court to disburse monies already in the Clerk’s
4
possession to the restitution victims and Crime Victims Fund, as appropriate. Regarding the
5
$3,126.84 judgment surplus residue remaining after the Clerk of Court pays the $137,347.61
6
Restitution Surplus to the Plan Administrator, the United States indicates that it has no objection
7
to the Clerk disbursing that sum in accordance with applicable law, regulations, or procedures.
8
Finding the United States’ request to be reasonable and supported by the record, the court issues
9
findings and recommendations for disposition of the judgment surplus consistent with that
10
request.
11
CONCLUSION
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
13
1. The February 17, 2016 garnishment order (ECF No. 20), including its findings,
14
reasoning, and conclusions, be adopted as a final order of the court, except as to the
15
portions of the order concerning the corporate accounts at Tri Counties Bank, given
16
that the United States has voluntarily abated its garnishment of those accounts.
17
2. The United States’ request for a $284,813.77 litigation surcharge be approved, and the
18
Chapter 11 trustee/Plan Administrator be directed to pay the United States Department
19
of Justice the surcharge amount as provided in the Stipulation filed in Bankruptcy
20
Case No. 16-21585-A-11 as Document No. 1187 and in this Miscellaneous Case No.
21
15-mc-16-JAM-KJN as ECF No. 46-1, with payment due within 30 days following the
22
filing of any order adopting these findings and recommendations, if they are adopted.
23
3. The Clerk of Court be directed to pay to Scott M. Sackett, Plan Administrator, the
24
$137,347.61 Restitution Surplus as defined in, and provided by, the Stipulation within
25
30 days following the filing of any order adopting the findings and recommendations,
26
27
28
5
The United States submits that the court can order this payment without amending the criminal
judgment as all of defendant’s criminal monetary penalties have or will be satisfied in full via
implementation of the Plan, Stipulation, and adoption of these findings and recommendations.
7
1
2
if they are adopted.
4. The Clerk of Court be directed to disburse all remaining funds in the Clerk’s
3
possession according to the schedule of payments section of the defendant, Hoda
4
Samuel’s, amended criminal judgment, CR ECF No. 597, Case No. 2:10-cr-223-JAM,
5
and be authorized to disburse any remaining surplus funds in accordance with
6
applicable law, regulations, or procedures.
7
5. All pending writs of garnishment be terminated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
8
3205(c)(10)(C) within 30 days of any order adopting these findings and
9
recommendations, if they are adopted.
10
6. The Clerk of Court be directed to administratively close these garnishment actions.
11
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
12
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 28 days after
13
being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with
14
the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to
15
Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served
16
on all parties and filed with the court within 14 days after service of the objections. The parties
17
are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal
18
the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst,
19
951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).
20
21
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Dated: December 28, 2018
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?