SKAZZI3 Capital Limited v. Pathway Genomics Corporation

Filing 69

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 67 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for an Inspection Order. This Order is without prejudice to petitioner seeking and obtaining orders for the judgment debtor and/or third parties to appear for examination as provided by California law. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 3/3/2020. (mme)

1

2

FILED

3

I MAR - 3 2020 I

4

CLEVil', ,..;

~

D:STh:CT COUHT

SOUT'-!EW, [):5-Hic: o.: Cll1tolfOHN!;~
SY
I lll")EfliJTY

,

5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SKAZZI3 CAPITAL LIMITED,

Case No.: 18cv317-BEN(KSC)

Petitioner,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
INSPECTION ORDER

V.

PATHWAY GENOMICS
CORPORATION,

15

Respondent.

16

[Doc. No. 67.]

17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Before the Court is petitioner's Ex Parte Application for an Order to Inspect
Respondent's Principal Place of Business. [Doc. No. 67.] Respondent has not filed a
response or opposition to the Ex Parte Application, and it is not clear from the papers
submitted that respondent was properly served with petitioner's moving papers. For the
reasons outlined more fully below, the Court finds that petitioner's Ex Parte Application
must be DENIED.

Background
By way of a Petition to Enforce an Arbitration Award, petitioner seeks to enforce a
money judgment against respondent. [Doc. No. I.] On December 26, 2018, the District
Court entered judgment against defendant in the amount of $442,670.25, an amount that
was due and owing under the parties' Settlement Agreement. At the same time, the

I

l 8cv3 l 7 -BEN(KSC)

1 District Court granted a writ of attachment in the amount of$442,670.25. [Doc. No. 26.]
2

Thereafter, a writ of attachment was imposed on April 30, 2019 as to certain corporate

3 property of defendant's, including bank accounts and accounts receivable arising out of
4

any trade with certain identified third parties. [Doc. No. 36, at pp. 1-2.] On or about

5 May 10, 2019, petitioner recovered a total of $4,199.43 via writ of execution. [Doc. No.
6
7

67-2, at p. 2.]
On May 8, 2019, petitioner completed a judgment debtor examination of

8 respondent through respondent's representative, Stephanie Cox. [Doc. No. 37.] In
9

support of the current Ex Parte Application, petitioner submitted a transcript of this

10

examination. [Doc. No. 67-2, at pp. 40-57.] At the time of the examination, Ms. Cox

11

testified she was employed by respondent as an office manager, had been in this position

12

about a year, and had been employed by respondent since November 2014. [Doc. No.

13

67-2, at p. 45-46.] Ms: Cox testified she did not have any knowledge about respondent's

14

property, receivables, and assets, and she did not know who would be familiar with these

15

topics. [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 55.] In general terms, Ms. Cox was able to describe the

16

operations taking place at respondent's principal place of business and did identify some

17

employees and former employees who may have knowledge about respondent's finances.

18

[Doc. 67-2, at pp. 46-54.]

19

On December 20, 2019, the District Court issued an Order requiring defendant to

20

assign to plaintiff its interest and rights in all monetary payments due or to become due

21

from retail portals CVS, Meijerpharmacies, Walmart, and Amazon.com, as well as credit

22

card processors American Express Corporation, Visa U.S.A. Inc., and Mastercard

23

International Incorporated. [Doc. No. 62, at p. 6.] At the same time, the District Court

24

issued an order restraining defendant from assigning or otherwise disposing of its rights

25

and interests to payments through these portals. [Doc. No. 62, at p. 6.]

26
27

Although respondent was initially represented by counsel in this action, counsel
filed a Motion to Withdraw on October 1, 2019. [Doc. No. 49.] This Motion was

28 • granted in an Order filed December 17, 2019. Although respondent was directed to
2

18cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)

1 ·obtain new counsel within thirty days and have new counsel file a notice of appearance

2

[Doc. No. 59, at p. 4], no appearance of counsel has been filed and respondent remains

3

unrepresented in this action.

4
5

Discussion
In the Ex Parte Application, petitioner seeks an order allowing a direct inspection

6

of respondent's principal place of business, because it has been unable to determine

7

through a judgment debtor examination and written discovery requests what property,

8

receivables, and other assets could be used to satisfy the judgment. [Doc. No. 67-1, at p.

9

7.] In addition, on January 15, 2020, petitioner received a document entitled Notice of

10

Sale Process for Pathway Genomics Corporation Assets from a "secured creditor" named

11

Vadim Shulman. [Doc. No. 67-1, at p. 3; Doc. No. 67-2, at pp. 34-35.] Petitioner

12

believes this notice raises significant concerns that respondent is being stripped of all its

13

value and assets through self-dealing and/or fraudulent transfers that will prevent plaintiff

14

from being able to enforce the judgment. [Doc. No. 67-1, at p. 6.]

15

Although no confirming evidence was submitted, petitioner's Ex Parte Application

16

suggests that Mr. Shulman is respondent's "CEO, Secretary, CFO, and board member."

17

[Doc. No. 67-1, at p. 4.] According to the Notice of Sale, respondent defaulted on

18

"Promissory Notes" in the aggregate original principal amount of $9,250,000 and

19

"Additional Amounts" of approximately $16,028,400 that were owed to Mr. Shulman, as

20

a secured creditor. Therefore, Mr. Shulman exercised his right to "take control of the

21

Collateral." [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 34.] Pursuant to the Notice of Sale, Mr. Shulman

22

provided shareholders and stakeholders ten (10) business days to make offers to acquire

23

respondent's "operating assets," including "all personal and intellectual property and

24

goodwill." [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 34.] An auction was scheduled to occur if acceptable

25

offers were received. [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 35.]

26

The Notice of Sale also states as follows: "The Secured Creditor [i.e.,

27

Mr. Shulman] has provisionally agreed to continue to finance [respondent] through the

28

restructuring period on a modified basis in order to maintain operations sufficient to
3

18cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)

1

support the fulfillment of customer contracts and [respondent's] goodwill. All such

2 financing will be senior secured credit. [1][Respondent] is working with its advisors to
3

determine the level of financing required." [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 35.] For further

4

information, Notice recipients were provided with contact information for Mark A.

5

Greenberg of Silverstone Capital Advisors, LLC and John A. Sten of Pierce Atwood

6

LLP. [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 35.] Although petitioner's counsel submitted a Declaration in

7

support of the Ex Parte Application to Inspect Respondent's Principal Place of Business,

8

the Declaration does not state whether these individuals were contacted for additional

9

information. [Doc. No. 67-2, atpp. 1-5.]

10

Respondent argues that the Notice of Sale creates exigent circumstances which

11

justify an inspection order. [Doc. No. 67-1, at p. 6.] However, petitioner did not cite,

12

and this Court was unable to locate, any authority which would authorize the Court to

13

issue an order granting petitioner the right to enter and inspect respondent's principal

14

place of business under the circumstances presented to locate assets that may aid in the

15

enforcement of the judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 does provide in part as

16

follows:

17
18
19

20
21
22

(a)
A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope
of Rule 26(b):
(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property
possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting
party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test or sample the
property or any designated object or operation on it.
(b)

The request:

23
24

(A) must describe with reasonable particularity
each item or category of items to be inspected;

25
26
27

(B) must specify a reasonable time, place and
manner for the inspection and for performing the related
acts; and

28
4

l 8cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)

1
2

(C) may specify the form or forms in which
electronically stored information is to be produced.

3

4
5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(a)(2).
After a formal, written request has been made under Rules 34(a) and 34(b), "[t]he

6 party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being
7 served ...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(A). "For each item or category, the response must
8 either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state with
9 specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons." Fed.R.Civ.P.
10

34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party objects to the request for an inspection, the parties

11

must meet and confer and contact the Court if they are unable to reach agreement.

12 Fed.R.Civ.P 37(a)(l); Civ. L.R. 26.l(a); Chambers Rule VIII(A). If the responding party
13

does not respond and/or declines to meet and corifer, the requesting party may then file a

14 motion to compel as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a).
15

A Rule 34 request for "unrestricted access" to a party's "corporate headquarters" is

16

"overly broad on its face." Schwab v. Wyndhamlnt'l, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 538-539 (N.D. Tex.

17

2005). "'Since entry upon a party's premises may entail greater burdens and risks than

18

mere production of documents, a greater inquiry into the necessity for inspection would

19

seem warranted."' KeithH v. Long Beach Unified School Dist., 228 F.R.D. 652,659 (C.D.

20

Cal. 2005),.quoting Belcher v. Bassett Furniture Indus., Inc., 588 F.2d 904, 908 (4th Cir.

21

1978.). As noted above, inspection requests under Rule 34(a) must be within the scope of

22

Rule 26(b ), and, as a result, "the degree to which the proposed inspection will aid in the

23

search for truth must be balanced against the burdens and dangers created by the

24

inspection." Belcher, 588 F2d at 908. For example, Rule 26(b)(l) indicates that the Court

25

must consider "whether the burden ... of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely

26

benefit." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(l). Rule 26(b)(2)(B) further states that the Court must limit

27

discovery that "can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, [or] less

28

burdensome ...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
5
18cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)

1

Here, petitioner's Ex Parte Application and supporting documents do not indicate

2

respondent has been properly served with a formal, written Rule 34 request for inspection

3

or with respondent's Ex Parte Application for an Inspection Order. Rather, the Declaration

4

of petitioner's counsel only states that he has attempted to contact respondent via telephone

5

and by e-mail at an e-mail address provided to him by respondent's former counsel, but

6 respondent has not returned any of counsel's calls or e-mails. [Doc. No. 67-2, at pp. 4.]
7

As a result, the parties have not satisfied the meet and confer requirements. In addition,

8 respondent is unrepresented at this time, even though the District Court directed respondent
9

to retain new counsel by January 17, 2020. [Doc. No. 59, at p. 4.] Petitioner also reported

10

in the Ex Parte Application that respondent has moved its office, but respondent has not

11

provided this information to the Court. [Doc. No. 67-1, at p. 7 n.l.] The Court's docket

12

does not even include an address for respondent or any other information that could be

13

used to serve respondent through the Court's electronic-filing system. Because respondent

14

is unrepresented, has not provided information necessary for electronic service, and has

15

not responded to e-mails or telephone calls, it would be necessary for petitioner to serve

16

respondent with discovery requests and any other documents, such as motions or ex parte

17

applications, as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.

18

Moreover, without more, it does not appear that a Rule 34 inspection by petitioner

19

of respondent's place of business is likely to result in discovery of information that would

20

be helpful in enforcing the judgment. In this regard, the Court notes that petitioner has not

21

described items that it wishes to inspect on the premises "with reasonable particularity,"

22

and it does not appear petitioner has any information as to what assets or information about

23

assets could be located at respondent's principal place of business that might be used to

24

satisfy the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(1 )(A). In addition, as outlined more fully below,

25

there are less burdensome means for petitioner to discover relevant information.

26

Accordingly, under the circumstances presented, the Court finds that petitioner's Ex Parte

27

Application must be DENIED to the extent it seeks an inspection order under Rule 34.

28

///
6

l 8cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)

1

With respect to the enforcement of money judgments, Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 69 provides as follows: "A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution,

3

unless the court directs otherwise.

4

supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution-must accord with the procedure

5

of the state where the court is located.... " Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(l) (emphasis added).

The procedure on execution-and in proceedings

6

In California, "[d]etailed statutory provisions govern the manner and extent to which

7

civil judgments are enforceable." Imperial Bankv. Pim Electric, Inc., 33 Cal.App.4th 540,

8

546 (1995). "In 1982, California enacted a comprehensive Enforcement of Judgments Law

9

("EJL") governing the enforcement of all civil judgments in California." In re Burns, 291

10

B.R. 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2003), citing Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcement Judgements &

11

Debts §6: 1-6:2 (The Rutter Group} Petitioner has not cited, and the Court was unable to

12

locate, any authority on the enforcement of civil judgments under California law, for this

13

Court to issue an order allowing petitioner to enter and conduct a direct inspection of

14

respondent's principal place of business to discover assets and other property that could be

15

used to satisfy the judgment.

16

Instead, under California law, a judgment creditor may apply to the Court for an

17

order requiring the judgment debtor or any "third person" who "has possession or control

18

of property in which the judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment

19

creditor..." to appear before the Court for examination. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 708.110

20

and 708.120. A "specified individual" may be ordered to appear for examination. Cal.

21

Code Civ. Proc. § 708.150. In addition, any person with lmowledge that may aid in the

22

enforcement of a judgment, e.g., the debtor's accountant, bookkeeper, and others who do

23

not possess or control the debtor's property or owe the debtor money, may be subpoenaed

24

to testify. Shrewsbury Mgmt., Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal. App. 5th 1213, 1225-1226

25

(2019). · See also Cal. Practice Guide: Enforcement Judgements & Debts §6:1282.

26

Following a judgment debtor examination, a creditor may request a "turnover order"

27

requiring the debtor or a third party to deliver identified assets to a levying officer or a

28

receiver. In re Burns, 291 B.R. at 854-855. If an order to appear for an examination is
7
18cv317-BEN(KSC)

1 properly served (i.e., by a sheriff, marshal, a person specially appointed by the court in the
2

order, or a registered process server), an examinee who fails to appear is subject to

3

contempt. Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§§ 708.110; 708.120; 708.150; 708.170.

4

Thus far, respondent has not answered petitioner's written discovery requests despite

5

the Court's Order to do so. [Doc. No. 64.] Petitioner was able to conduct a debtor's

6

examination on May 8, 2019, but the examination did not result in enough information to

7

aid in satisfaction of the judgment. [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 43.] Respondent's office manager

8

was produced as respondent's "person most knowledgeable" about receivables, assets, and

9

other property. [Doc. No. 67-2, at pp. 44-57.] The office manager testified she did not

10

have any knowledge about respondent's property, receivables, and assets. [Doc. No. 67-

11

2, at p. 55.] However, the office manager did describe respondent's business operations at

12

its principal place of business and did disclose the names of individuals employed or

13

formerly employed by respondent who could possibly provide relevant information. The

14

transcript of the debtor's examination also indicates petitioner was aware at that time of

15

the examination that Mr. Shulman was one of respondent's investors and that he was listed

16

with the Secretary of State as respondent's chief executive officer, secretary, president, and

17

director. [Doc. No. 67-2, at pp. 46-55.] In addition, as noted above, the Notice of Sale

18

provided recipients with contact information for two individuals who could provide

19

"further information." [Doc. No. 67-2, at p. 35.]

20

In sum, rather than a direct inspection of respondent's principal place of business,

21

petitioner must, as provided by California law, exhaust sources of relevant information

22

through direct examination of the judgment debtor and third parties who may have

23

knowledge that could aid in the enforcement of the judgment. Accordingly, this Court

24

finds that petitioner's Ex Parte Application for an Order to Inspect Respondent's Principal

25

Place of Business must be DENIED.

26

In the Ex Parte Application, plaintiff also requests a temporary restraining order or

27

preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from transferring any property, receivables or

28

assets that would frustrate plaintiffs efforts to enforce the judgment. [Doc. No. 67-1, at
8

I 8cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)

1 pp. 8-9.] In addition, after filing the instant Ex Parte Application, plaintiff filed another
2

set of documents related to its request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary

3

injunction.

4

submission. The Court will respond separately to plaintiffs request for a temporary

5

restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction in a report and recommendation to the

6

District Judge assigned to this case.

[Doc. No. 68.] This portion of plaintiffs Ex Parte Application is under

7

Conclusion

8

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's Ex Parte

9

Application for an Order to Inspect Respondent's Principal Place of Business is

10

DENIED. This Order is without prejudice to petitioner seeking and obtaining orders for

11

the judgment debtor and/or third parties to appear for examination as provided by

12

California law.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 3, 2020

15
16

Hon. Kar
United States Magistrate Judge

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25

26
27

28
9

l 8cv3 l 7-BEN(KSC)