Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00131-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff and Judgment 

Creditor, 

v. 

HODA SAMUEL, 

Defendant and Judgment 

Debtor. 

No. 2:15-mc-0131 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 In this proceeding against Hoda Samuel, the judgment debtor, the United States seeks to 

conduct an examination of Aida Samuel (“respondent”), a third party and the judgment debtor’s 

spouse, in aid of a $3 million criminal restitution judgment against the judgment debtor. ECF 

No. 1; see United States v. Hoda Samuel, 2:10-cr-0223 JAM, ECF No. 597 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 

2014) (amended judgment in a criminal case). The proceeding was referred to the undersigned by 

E.D. Cal. R. 302(c)(11). 

 On December 11, 2015, at respondent’s request, the court vacated the scheduled Rule 69 

examination (“judgment debtor examination”) of respondent, and granted respondent an 

opportunity to explain why the examination should not go forward. 

 Respondent filed his Response to Government’s Garnishment Summons (ECF No. 8), and 

the government filed its Response (ECF No. 9). 

Case 2:15-mc-00131-KJM-AC Document 11 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 Respondent does not set forth any reason why the Rule 69 examination should not go 

forward. Instead, respondent has offered reasons why the government should not garnish his 

accounts. However, the garnishment is a separate matter and is not before the court in this 

proceeding.

 It is not necessary for the court to address respondent’s unsworn statements that his funds 

are entirely separate from his wife’s, and therefore should not be garnished, as that is not what the 

Rule 69 examination seeks. Rule 69 permits a judgment creditor to obtain discovery “from any

person” in aid of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2) (emphasis added). The government has 

provided sufficient evidence raising a “reasonable doubt” about whether respondent may be in 

possession of, or have knowledge about, any of the judgment debtor’s assets. Cf. Credit 

Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int'l, Inc., 160 F.3d 428, 431 (8th Cir. 1998); see also United States’ 

Response (ECF No. 9) and Declaration of Kurt A. Didier (ECF No. 9-1). Accordingly, it is 

entitled to conduct this examination of respondent.

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Respondent’s objections to the conduct of a Rule 69 examination are overruled. 

 2. The government may re-notice the Rule 69 examination of respondent. 

DATED: February 2, 2016 

Case 2:15-mc-00131-KJM-AC Document 11 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2