Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00131-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aiad Samuel
Movant
Hoda Samuel
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 

 The judgment debtor examination of Respondent, Aiad Samuel is scheduled for March 16, 

2016 at 10:00 a.m. ECF No. 13. Respondent again moves for a continuance of the examination. 

ECF No. 19. In his previous request for continuance, Respondent asserted that (1) he was 

attempting “to marshal the materials and records sought by the Government in this action,” 

(2) the March 16th date conflicted with the date his wife has an oral argument in the Ninth 

Circuit, but also (3) he, Respondent, would be “adversely affected” by any continuance. ECF 

No. 15. 

 Respondent now offers three new reasons for a continuance: (1) he has severe back, neck 

and knee pain that, together with the medications prescribed to treat it, prevent him from driving 

or taking care of his personal affairs; (2) his medical problems have prevented him from retaining 

counsel; and (3) his financial problems have prevented him from retaining counsel. Respondent 

Case 2:15-mc-00131-KJM-AC Document 22 Filed 03/14/16 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

asserts that his medical problems arose from a fall that occurred “in mid-February.” ECF No. 19 

at 2. 

 The court notes that Respondent’s last request for a continuance was filed on February 25, 

2016, which is after “mid-February,” and makes no mention of any fall or medical conditions. 

See ECF No. 15. To the contrary, one of the reasons Respondent offered as a reason to postpone 

the examination was his desire to travel to San Francisco to attend his wife’s oral argument before 

the Ninth Circuit on what he inaccurately claimed was the same day the examination was 

scheduled. See ECF No. 15 at 3. Respondent does not explain how he could travel five hours, 

round trip, from his home in Elk Grove to San Francisco on March 16th, but is too impaired to 

travel 45 minutes, round trip, from Elk Grove to downtown Sacramento on that day. 

 For the above reason, and for the reasons set forth in the government’s Opposition (ECF 

No. 20), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion To Postpone Rule 69 

Examination (ECF No 19), is DENIED. 

DATED: March 14, 2016 

Case 2:15-mc-00131-KJM-AC Document 22 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2