Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00099/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-mc-00099-1/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,

v.

HODA SAMUEL,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-mc-0016-JAM-KJN

No. 2:15-mc-0017-JAM-KJN

No. 2:15-mc-0099-JAM-KJN

ORDER

In a comprehensive order dated February 17, 2016, which was cross-docketed in each of 

the above-captioned miscellaneous actions, the court authorized garnishment of multiple accounts 

related to defendant and judgment debtor Hoda Samuel. On February 29, 2016, defendant’s 

spouse, Aiad Samuel, filed a motion for reconsideration of that order in each of the miscellaneous 

actions. After carefully considering the briefing submitted by Mr. Samuel and the court’s record, 

the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal 

representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the 

following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 

Case 2:15-mc-00099-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called 

intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an 

opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment 

that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no 

longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

As the court’s February 17, 2016 observed, although Mr. Samuel had been provided with 

notice of each of the writs of garnishment and his right to file objections or claims of exemption, 

as documented by the certificates of service filed with the court, Mr. Samuel ultimately failed to 

file objections or claims of exemption in any of the above-captioned miscellaneous actions. In 

his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Samuel now claims that he has in fact opposed the writs of 

garnishment, but that he filed such opposition and objections in another miscellaneous action

pending before Judge Claire, 2:15-mc-131-KJM-AC, which the United States commenced to 

obtain a third party examination of Mr. Samuel in aid of collection of the criminal judgment 

entered against his spouse. Mr. Samuel asserts that he filed his opposition and objections in the 

action before Judge Claire, because he believed that that action had been related and consolidated 

with these actions. For the reasons discussed below, Mr. Samuel’s arguments lack merit and do 

not warrant reconsideration.

As an initial matter, the third party examination action pending before Judge Claire has 

not been related to these garnishment actions. Contrary to Mr. Samuel’s argument, the United 

States had never moved to relate the third party examination action to the garnishment actions—it 

only filed a notice of related case with respect to the underlying criminal case. (See 2:15-mc-131-

KJM-AC, ECF No. 2.) Therefore, there is nothing on the docket of the third party examination 

action that could have reasonably confused Mr. Samuel in that regard. Indeed, there is evidence 

to the contrary. The court notes that Mr. Samuel specifically appeared in another related 

garnishment action, 2:15-mc-94-JAM-KJN, and filed objections to garnishment of the account at 

issue there.1 That appearance and filing of objections further belie Mr. Samuel’s assertion that he 

 

1

The writ of garnishment at issue in that action was subsequently terminated upon request by the 

Case 2:15-mc-00099-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3

was unaware that he needed to file objections in the individual garnishment actions. 

Furthermore, even assuming that the court found Mr. Samuel’s alleged mistake to be 

excusable, the court notes that Mr. Samuel first appeared in the third party examination action

before Judge Claire on December 8, 2015, when he filed a motion to vacate the order to appear 

for a third party examination. That motion raised, among other arguments, Mr. Samuel’s general 

objections to the propriety of the United States’ freezing and garnishment of his alleged personal 

and business accounts. However, even if those objections are deemed to have been filed in these 

miscellaneous actions, they are clearly untimely, given that Mr. Samuel was served with notice of 

the writs of garnishment and his right to object months earlier.

Finally, even if the objections were now considered on their merits, they do not support 

reconsideration. Mr. Samuel asserts that the United States is improperly garnishing his personal 

funds and funds related to his business, which he claims have no relationship to his wife or his 

marriage, and which he has set aside to pay certain real estate taxes. Mr. Samuel further argues 

that he and his wife have always kept their business affairs separate, and that he has been unfairly 

targeted by the United States even though he had nothing to do with the underlying crime. The 

court is not unsympathetic to the plight of an innocent spouse like Mr. Samuel. Nevertheless, as 

the court explained in its previous February 17, 2016 order, community property assets, even 

those assets primarily managed by the innocent spouse, are properly subject to garnishment, and 

all property and funds acquired during marriage are presumed to be community property, even if 

they derive from the innocent spouse’s own business or other endeavors. Mr. Samuel has the 

burden of overcoming that presumption and showing that a particular asset or account can be 

traced to a separate property source for purposes of California community property laws. Mr. 

Samuel’s untimely objections merely assert, in conclusory fashion, that the accounts subject to 

garnishment are his personal or business accounts, but Mr. Samuel’s subjective characterization 

of the accounts is not determinative. Additionally, the fact that Mr. Samuel has the funds 

earmarked for a particular purpose, i.e., the payment of real estate taxes, is also of no 

 

United States. 

Case 2:15-mc-00099-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

consequence to the characterization of the property at issue. Thus, even if the untimely objections 

were considered on their merits, they do not even remotely discharge Mr. Samuel’s burden of 

overcoming the community property presumption. The garnishments are proper and may 

proceed. 

Accordingly, Mr. Samuel’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. No further motions 

for reconsideration will be entertained.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2016

 

Case 2:15-mc-00099-JAM-KJN Document 19 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 4