Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00131/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00131-1/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 

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

conduct an examination of Aiad 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 November 3, 2015, the court granted the government’s ex parte application for 

respondent to appear for an examination and to produce documents. ECF No. 4. Respondent has 

now moved to vacate that order, and requests 28 days to oppose the ex parte application. ECF 

No. 6. In the alternative, respondent asks that the examination and document production be 

//// 

Case 2:15-mc-00131-KJM-AC Document 7 Filed 12/11/15 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

continued until “after his [respondent’s] Christmas holiday, which falls on January 11, 2016.” 

ECF No. 6 at 4. 

 Respondent also asserts that the order is defective in that it identifies him as the person 

against whom a criminal judgment was entered. Respondent is correct that the order incorrectly 

orders him “to furnish information to aid in the collection of a criminal judgment entered against 

you in this case.” ECF No. 4 at 1 (emphasis added). There is no criminal judgment against 

respondent, and this proceeding does not seek to collect a judgment from him, rather, it only 

seeks information from him. For that reason alone, the court is inclined to vacate the order. 

 The government’s application does not indicate any urgency in conducting the 

examination, and so the court will grant respondent’s request for 28 days to prepare an opposition 

to the government’s application. The court notes that the government initially sought information 

from respondent on or about July 22, 2014, and it does not indicate that it took any action after 

respondent “failed to complete the financial questionnaire or return the requested documents,” 

until filing its ex parte application on October 29, 2015. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. 

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

 1. The order of November 3, 2015 (ECF No. 4), is VACATED. The date for the 

examination and document production, scheduled for December 23, 2015, is VACATED. 

 2. Plaintiff’s request for 28 days to file his opposition to the government’s ex parte 

application is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opposition no later than January 6, 2016 at 3:30 

p.m. 

 3. The government shall file its response to plaintiff’s opposition no later than January 20, 

2016 at 3:30 p.m. 

DATED: December 10, 2015 

Case 2:15-mc-00131-KJM-AC Document 7 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2