Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02739/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02739-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:0077 Securities Fraud

---

1 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TAMER SALAMEH, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

TARSADIA HOTEL, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING JUDGMENT 

CREDITORS’ APPLICATION FOR 

ORDER TO APPEAR FOR THIRD PARTY 

EXAMINATION OF NORMAN NYBERG 

AND 

(2) DENYING AS MOOT JUDGMENT 

CREDITORS’ APPLICATION FOR 

ISSUANCE OF CIVIL SUBPOENA 

DUCES TECUM 

[ECF No. 487] 

On November 19, 2015, Defendants 5th Rock, LLC and MKP One, LLC (collectively 

“Judgment Creditors”) filed an “Application for Order to Appear for Third Party Examination of 

Norman Nyberg, for Issuance or Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum at Examination, and Declaration 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 1 of 10
2 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

of Natalia A. Minassian in Support Thereof.” ECF No. 487 (“Mot.”). In accordance with the 

Court’s briefing schedule [ECF No. 490], Judgment Debtor Tamer Salameh filed an opposition 

on December 14, 2015. ECF No. 494 (“Oppo.”). Judgment Creditors filed a timely reply on 

December 18, 2015. ECF No. 495 (“Reply”). Having considered all of the briefing and supporting 

documents presented, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Judgment 

Creditors’ application for an order to appear for third party examination of Norman Nyberg and 

DENIES as moot their application for the issuance of civil subpoena duces tecum. 

FACTUAL AND RPOCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 On December 8, 2009, Plaintiff Tamer Salameh and other Plaintiffs filed a class action 

complaint against Tarsadia Hotel, Tushar Patel, B.U. Patel, Gregory Casserly, 5th Rock, LLC, 

MKP One, LLC, and Gaslamp Holdings, LLC (collectively, “Tarsadia Defendants”) and other 

defendants involved in the development of the Hard Rock Hotel in San Diego. ECF No. 1. On 

September 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging violations of 

federal and state securities laws, fraud based on misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment 

against numerous defendants, including Tarsadia Defendants. ECF No. 86. On March 22, 2011, 

District Judge Dana M. Sabraw granted Tarsadia Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ SAC 

with prejudice, and on March 23, 2011, the Court entered a judgment against Plaintiffs. ECF 

Nos. 158 & 159. On October 7, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s order. ECF 

No. 224. 

 On October 12, 2012, the case was transferred to District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. ECF 

No. 215. On July 31, 2014, Judge Curiel granted Judgment Creditors’ motion for attorney’s fees. 

ECF No. 245 at 7. Starting on January 16, 2015, Judgment Creditors began requesting the Court 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 2 of 10
3 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

to enter abstracts of judgment, which the Court subsequently entered against each Plaintiff, 

including Tamer Salameh (“Judgment Debtor”). See ECF Nos. 250-329, 332-71, 378-95. 

On September 9, 2015, Judgment Creditors conducted an examination of Judgment 

Debtor Tamer Salameh. ECF No. 485; see also Mot. at 3. On November 19, 2015, Judgment 

Creditors filed the instant motion seeking an order requiring a third party, Norman Nyberg, to 

appear at a third party examination and to “furnish information to aid in enforcement of the 

Judgment.” Mot. at 2. Mr. Nyberg is Judgment Debtor’s Salameh’s accountant, and Judgment 

Creditors seek to examine Mr. Nyberg in his individual capacity and in his capacity as a 

representative of Nyberg Financial Service. ECF No. 487, Declaration of Natalia A. Minassian 

(“Minassian Decl.”) at 2; see also ECF No. 487 at 5 (containing Mr. Salameh’s statement that 

Norman Nyberg is a corporate accountant of IB4B, a corporation). In case the Court denies the 

request for an order requiring Mr. Nyberg to appear for an examination, Judgment Creditors ask 

the Court to authorize the issuance of a subpoena requiring Mr. Nyberg to produce documents. 

Id. at 3. Judgment Debtor Salameh opposes Judgment Creditors’ requests arguing that they 

are ambiguous, procedurally defective, and lack legal support. Oppo. at 1-3. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, a money judgment is enforced by a writ of 

execution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “The procedure on execution–and in proceedings 

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

state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Id. This 

Court thus is required to follow California’s statutory provisions for the enforcement of 

judgments, known collectively as the Enforcement of Judgments Law, as set forth in CCP 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 3 of 10
4 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

§§ 680.010-724.260. See Richard McKnight & Shirley J. McKnight 2000 Family Trust v. Barkett, 

2015 WL 1956430, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2015); 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 

7467806, at *2. 

Pursuant to California law, judgment debtor proceedings “permit the judgment creditor 

to examine the judgment debtor, or third persons who have property of or are indebted to the 

judgment debtor, in order to discover property and apply it toward the satisfaction of the money 

judgment.” United States v. Feldman, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (quoting 

Imperial Bank v. Pim Elec., Inc., 33 Cal.App.4th 540, 546-47 (1995); CCP §§ 708.110-708.205)); 

21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *2 (same). Debtor examinations are 

intended “to allow the judgment creditor a wide scope of inquiry concerning property and 

business affairs of the judgment debtor,” and “to leave no stone unturned in the search for 

assets which might be used to satisfy the judgment.” Feldman, 324 F. Supp. 2d at 1116 (quoting 

Hooser v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1002 (2000); Troy v. Superior Court, 186 

Cal.App.3d 1006, 1014 (1986)). 

DISCUSSION 

Judgment Creditors assert that Mr. Nyberg’s third party examination is warranted because 

he “has knowledge, custody and control” over Judgment Debtor Salameh’s “financial activities” 

and “documents.” See Minassian Decl. at 2-3. Judgment Creditors also seek “any and all original 

documents and copies of documents” in Mr. Nyberg’s “possession, custody or control relating to 

Tamer Salameh and any business with which he is associated (except for personal tax returns)” 

as described in twenty categories. See id., Exh. 1. Judgment Creditors claim that they need 

the requested documents to “determine Tamer Salameh’s financial condition and explore 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 4 of 10
5 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

avenues of enforcement of the Judgment,” and that Mr. Salameh failed to produce during his 

recent judgment debtor exam some of the documents Judgment Creditors now seek to obtain 

from Mr. Nyberg. Mot. at 3. 

Judgment Debtor Salameh objects, arguing that Judgment Creditors’ “filing is ambiguous, 

without authority, and lacks procedural due process.” Oppo. at 1. Judgment Debtor Salameh 

challenges Judgment Creditors’ application on procedural grounds and argues that their 

proposed subpoena is flawed and fails to cite legal authority. Id. at 2. Judgment Debtor 

Salameh also argues that the requested documents “go well beyond any foundation for the 

witness as there is no showing the witness has any more involvement than as to IB4B,” and 

asserts that he has produced tax returns for IB4B. Id. at 2-3; see also ECF No. 494-1, 

Declaration of Maria C. Severson (“Severson Decl.”) at 1-2 (stating that prior to and during 

Judgment Debtor’s Salameh’s examination, his counsel provided documents “responsive to the 

order for examination and the request to produce documents set forth therein,” and that the 

produced documents included tax documents for Mr. Salameh and “corporations with which he 

was affiliated, including IB4B.”). Judgment Debtor Salameh asserts that the “matters” sought 

by Judgment Creditors are “overly broad,” and asks the Court to deny their requests. Oppo. at 

3. 

Judgment Creditors reply that their application is not procedurally deficient, and argue 

that they are entitled to examine Mr. Nyberg because he “more than likely” will have “information 

that would lead to the discovery of assets of the judgment debtor,” and rely in support on 

California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 708.130, CCP § 187, and 21st Century Fin. Servs., 

LLC v. Manchester Fin. Bank, 2014 WL 7467806 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2014). Reply at 3-4. 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 5 of 10
6 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

Judgment Creditors explain that Mr. Nyberg “has received information about the finances of 

[Judgment] Debtor [Salameh] during his course and dealings with Debtor,” and that as a result, 

Mr. Nyberg “can testify as to the location of assets that would lead to the enforcement of the 

judgment entered against Debtor.” Id. at 2. Judgment Creditors further state that they seek 

Mr. Nyberg’s examination because Mr. Salameh failed to produce some of the requested 

documents and “to reveal a clear picture . . . of his current financial condition.” Id. at 4. 

Judgment Creditors therefore ask the Court to order Mr. Nyberg to appear at a third party 

examination and further ask to reset the examination to a “Wednesday in February 2016.” Id. 

at 5. 

A. Procedural Challenges 

Judgment Debtor Salameh challenges Judgment Creditors’ application on procedural 

grounds. See Oppo. at 2. Even if some of Judgment Debtor’s objections have merit, the Court 

may exercise its discretion under CCP § 187 and Civil Local Rule 1.1(d) in the interest of justice 

to accept the application despite the alleged deficiencies. See Civ. LR 1.1(d) (providing that 

“[i]n the interest of justice, a judge may waive the applicability of these rules.”); CCP § 187; see 

also 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *5 (considering judgment creditors’ 

motion for order to appear at a third party examination despite any alleged procedural flaws). 

Therefore, the Court will exercise its discretion and consider the merits of Judgment Creditors’ 

application. 

B. Application for Third Party Examination of Norman Nyberg 

Judgment Creditors argue that Mr. Nyberg’s examination is warranted because he “has 

knowledge, custody and control” over Judgment Debtor Salameh’s “financial activities” and 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 6 of 10
7 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

“documents,” and likely has “information that would lead to the discovery” of Judgment Debtor’s 

Salameh’s assets. See Reply at 1-2; Minassian Decl. at 2-3. CCP § 708.120 permits a judgment 

creditor to examine third parties under certain circumstances as follows: 

Upon ex parte application by a judgment creditor who has a money judgment and 

proof by the judgment creditor by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the 

proper court that a third person has possession or control of property in which the 

judgment debtor has an interest or is indebted to the judgment debtor in an 

amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250), the court shall make an order 

directing the third person to appear before the court, or before a referee appointed 

by the court, at a time and place specified in the order, to answer concerning such 

property or debt. The affidavit in support of the judgment creditor’s application 

may be based on the affiant’s information and belief. 

CCP § 708.120(a). Accordingly, a judgment creditor seeking to examine a third party is required 

to establish that the third party “has possession or control of property in which the judgment 

debtor has an interest” or is “indebted to the judgment debtor in an amount exceeding two 

hundred fifty dollars ($250).” See id.; see also Levin v. Sellers, 2013 WL 6057942, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 15, 2013); Richard McKnight & Shirley J. McKnight 2000 Family Trust, 2015 WL 

1956430, at *3. In this case, Judgment Creditors do not assert that the third party, Mr. Nyberg, 

possesses or controls Mr. Salameh’s property, or that Mr. Nyberg owes Mr. Salameh more than 

$250. See id.; see also CCP § 708.120(a). As such, the requirements of CCP § 708.120(a) are 

not satisfied, and the third party examination cannot be ordered pursuant to this provision. 

However, Judgment Creditors rely on CCP §§ 187 & 708.130 and 21st Century Fin. Servs., 

LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, in arguing that the requested third party examination is authorized by 

the California law. See Reply at 3-4. The 21st Century court authorized a third party 

examination pursuant to CCP §§ 187 & 708.130, because there was a “close nexus” between 

the third party and the judgment debtor. 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 7 of 10
8 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

*3. In reaching its decision, the court reasoned that the third party was “intimately involved at 

all stages of the operations of the Judgment Debtor, including its creation and dissolution,” and 

likely “possess[ed] documents pertaining to Judgment Debtor that [we]re not otherwise 

available to Judgment Creditor.” Id. The court found that the third party examination was 

appropriate and in the interest of justice and fundamental fairness in order to obtain information 

about Judgment Debtor’s property and assets. Id. at *2-3. 

Pursuant to CCP § 708.130(a), cited by the 21st Century court, “[w]itnesses may be 

required to appear and testify before the court or referee in an examination proceeding under 

this article in the same manner as upon the trial of an issue.” CCP § 708.130(a); 21st Century 

Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *3-4. The 21st Century court interpreted the provision 

to indicate that “any witness with relevant information may be compelled to submit to an 

examination in connection with a judgment enforcement, so long as that witness could be called 

upon to testify as a witness in a trial on the issue.” See id. Further, the court in 21st Century 

cited CCP § 187, which provides the following: “[w]hen jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this 

Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary 

to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of 

proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or 

mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this 

code.” CCP § 187; 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *4-5. The 21st Century 

court observed that numerous state and federal courts invoked CCP § 187 “to effectuate 

judgment enforcement through procedures not specifically authorized under the Enforcement 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 8 of 10
9 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

of Judgments Law,” and exercised its discretion to order a third party examination. See id. 

(citations omitted). 

Judgment Creditors specifically invoke CCP §§ 187 & 708.130 in arguing that they are 

entitled to examine Mr. Nyberg. Reply at 3-4. As discussed above, courts may order a third 

party examination pursuant to those provisions, even if the requirements of CCP § 708.120 are 

not met. 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *3, *4 n.3. Judgment Debtor 

Salameh stated during his recent examination that he is a sole shareholder of IB4B, a 

corporation, and that Mr. Nyberg is the corporation’s accountant. Mot., Exh. 1 at 5. 

Furthermore, the parties’ pleadings indicate that Mr. Nyberg has served as a corporate 

accountant for at least several years, as indicated by his filing of corporate tax returns for IB4B. 

See Oppo. at 3, Severson Decl. at 1-2; Reply at 2. As such, Mr. Nyberg likely possesses 

information and documents concerning Judgment Debtor Salameh’s finances, property and 

assets. Further, because Judgment Debtor Salameh allegedly failed to produce some of the 

requested documents during his examination on September 9, 2015, Mr. Nyberg may possess 

“documents pertaining to Judgment Debtor that are not otherwise available.” See 21st Century 

Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *3; Oppo. at 4; Mot. at 3; see also ECF No. 485. 

Judgment Creditors have established the requisite close nexus between Mr. Nyberg and 

Judgment Debtor Salameh, and the examination of Mr. Nyberg will help Judgment Creditors 

assess Judgment Debtor Salameh’s financial condition and explore potential avenues to enforce 

the judgment in this case. See 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC, 2014 WL 7467806, at *2-3. The 

Court therefore, GRANTS Judgment Creditors’ application for an order to appear for third party 

examination of Norman Nyberg. See CCP §§ 187 & 708.130; 21st Century Fin. Servs., LLC. 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 9 of 10
10 

9cv2739-GPC (BLM) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

C. Application for the Issuance of Civil Subpoena Duces Tecum 

Judgment Creditors ask the Court to authorize the issuance of a subpoena requiring Mr. 

Nyberg to produce the documents, in case the Court denies the request for an order requiring 

Mr. Nyberg to appear for an examination. See Mot. at 3. Because the Court grants Judgment 

Creditors’ application to conduct a third party examination of Mr. Nyberg, the Court DENIES as 

moot the application to authorize the issuance of a subpoena. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

(1) The Court GRANTS Judgment Creditors’ application for an order to appear for third 

party examination of Norman Nyberg. Judgment Creditors are instructed to confer with counsel 

for Mr. Nyberg (or Mr. Nyberg if he is unrepresented) and the Court Clerk assigned to judgment 

enforcement cases in this District to obtain a mutually-agreeable date and time for the 

examination, and then to submit a proposed order to this Court's chambers with a copy to 

opposing counsel. At that time, the Court will issue the Order compelling the examination. 

(2) The Court DENIES as moot Judgment Creditors’ application for the issuance of civil 

subpoena duces tecum. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 1/4/2016 

Case 3:09-cv-02739-GPC-BLM Document 498 Filed 01/04/16 Page 10 of 10