United States of America v. Estate of Amir Zavieh, a/k/a Allen Zavieh, Deceased et al

Filing 21

ORDER Requiring Supplemental Briefing re 18 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Deem Service Completed. Plaintiff's supplemental brief due by 10/18/2017. Defendant's response due by 10/25/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/6/2017. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-03286-KAW
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

v.
ESTATE OF AMIR ZAVIEH, A/K/A
ALLEN ZAVIEH, DECEASED, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 18

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On June 7, 2017, Plaintiff United States of America filed the instant complaint against

14

Defendants Estate of Amir Zavieh ("Decedent's Estate") and Lisa Zavieh Martin for the collection

15

of an outstanding civil penalty assessed against Amir Zavieh ("Decedent"). (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.)

16

Defendant Martin was named as a defendant in her capacity as the executor of Decedent's Estate.

17

(Compl. ¶ 2.)

18

On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Decedent's Estate and

19

Defendant Martin. Defendant Martin was named as a defendant as the fraudulent transferee of

20

Decedent, as well as in her capacity as the successor-in-interest of Decedent's Estate. (First

21

Amended Compl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 7.) Plaintiff concurrently filed an ex parte motion to appoint

22

Defendant Martin as the personal representative of Decedent's Estate, as well as an ex parte

23

motion to extend time to effectuate service by 90 days. (Mot. to Appoint, Dkt. No. 9; Mot. to

24

Extend Time, Dkt. No. 8.)

25

On September 11, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to appoint Defendant Martin as

26

the personal representative under the probate exception. (Dkt. No. 16 at 2.) The Court also denied

27

Plaintiff's motion to extend time to effectuate service as moot, as Plaintiff had requested the

28

extension of time in order to give time for the Court to decide the motion to appoint. (Id. at 3.)

1

On September 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for administrative relief to deem

2

service completed or, in the alternative, to reconsider the motion to extend time for service and to

3

allow service by publication. (Dkt. No. 18.)

4

The Court requires supplemental briefing on Plaintiff's ex parte motion. First, it is not

5

clear to the Court why Plaintiff does not seek to substitute Defendant Martin for the Estate. See

6

Sequoia Prop. & Equip. Ltd. P'ship v. United States of America, No. CV-F-97-5044-LJO, 2002

7

WL 32388132, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2002) ("An executor or administrator, or distributee of a

8

distributed estate are proper parties for substitution of a deceased party"). In Sequoia Prop., the

9

district court noted that "[a]n order of substitution is prerequisite to obtain a judgment against a
deceased party's estate," yet it does not appear Plaintiff is seeking an order of substitution, despite

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

having identified Defendant Martin as the sole distributee of the estate. Id. at *3; see also William

12

W. Schwarzer, et al., FEDERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE BEFORE TRIAL ¶ 7:364 (The Rutter Group 2017)

13

("An order of substitution is prerequisite to obtaining a judgment against a deceased party's

14

estate").

15

Indeed, many of the cases cited by Plaintiff in support of the motion to appoint concerned

16

motions to substitute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25. See Sinito v. U.S. Dep't of Justice,

17

176 F.3d 512, 516 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (discussing proper parties for substitution of a deceased party);

18

Rende v. Kay, 415 F.2d 983, 986 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (requiring that a suggestion of death identify the

19

representative or successor of an estate who may be substituted as a party for the deceased under

20

Rule 25); Hardy v. Kaszycki & Sons Contractors, Inc., 842 F. Supp. 713, 716-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)

21

(determining that the representative of the decedent's estate was the proper party to be substituted

22

in the action); In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 616 F.3d 778, 784-85 (8th Cir. 2010) (applying Rule 25).

23

Given that Plaintiff has previously been able to serve Defendant Martin in her individual capacity,

24

obtaining a substitution would eliminate any need for service by publication.

25

Second, if Plaintiff does not intend to seek an order of substitution, the Court requires

26

additional legal authority on why service on Defendant Martin constitutes service on the Estate.

27

Plaintiff appears to rely upon United States ex rel. Madany v. Petre, Case No. 09-13693, 2015 WL

28

6667770 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2015), in which the district court found that service upon a
2

1

representative or successor of the estate constituted proper service of the estate. There, however,

2

the district court relied upon the magistrate judge's conclusion that such service would be

3

effective,1 but did not explain what the magistrate judge's reasoning was beyond that the

4

magistrate judge had used Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 "for guidance." Id. at *2. Thus, it is

5

not clear how the magistrate judge concluded that service on a representative or successor of an

6

estate constituted proper service of the estate, or why federal rules regarding substitution of parties

7

relates to service. Again, substitution of Defendant Martin for the deceased party would seemingly

8

resolve this problem because then, service on her would constitute service on the estate.
Third, with respect to Plaintiff's request to serve by publication in the San Francisco Daily

10

Journal, Plaintiff must explain why publication in a legal newspaper is likely to give actual notice

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

to anyone who may have an interest in the estate. In its motion, Plaintiff stated that the reasons

12

supporting this proposed manner of publication were contained in the accompanying declaration

13

of Attorney Bortnick, but the declaration does not appear to contain any explanation as to why the

14

Daily Journal is an adequate publication; instead, the declaration focuses solely on Defendant

15

Martin's relationship to the estate. (See Bortnick Decl., Dkt. No. 18-1.) Plaintiff must also explain

16

whether it still requires an extension of time for service if its request to serve by publication is

17

denied, and for what purpose.
Plaintiff's supplemental brief must be filed by October 18, 2017. Defendant Martin may

18
19

file a responsive brief, if any, by October 25, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 6, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The district court noted that neither party had objected to the magistrate judge's conclusion that
service upon the representative or successor of the estate constituted proper service of the estate.
Madany, 2015 WL 6667770, at *4.
3