United States v. Kandi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05653-RJB Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 12 v. MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 EMIEL KANDI, 14 Defendant.

16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Emiel Kandi’s Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. 43. The Court has considered the motion and remaining file and is fully advised.

18 On November 28, 2022, the Court granted the United States’ Motion to Serve by Publication and Extend Time for Service after it attempted and failed to serve Mr. Kandi personally. Dkt. 7. Mr. Kandi answered the complaint and moved to dismiss based on insufficient service of process. Dkt. 14. He contended that the Court did not have personal jurisdiction over him because the United States published notice in the wrong newspaper. Id. His motion was denied without prejudice and the United States was given an opportunity to perfect service. Dkt. 21. After the United States attempted several more times to personally serve Mr. Kandi, its second motion to serve him by publication was granted. Dkts. 28 and 29.

3 On August 3, 2023, the United States filed a declaration asserting that Mr. Kandi was served by publication for six consecutive weeks. Dkt. 32.

5 On December 4, 2023, the parties stipulated to entry of judgment in favor of the United States against Mr. Kandi for income taxes, interest, and penalties in the amount of $322,086.99, plus interest, penalties and other statutory amounts accruing until the liabilities were paid in full.

8 Dkt. 33. The parties further agreed that the stipulation did not affect Mr. Kandi’s right to appeal the Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Id. The Court entered judgment as agreed by the parties on January 3, 2024. Dkts. 36 and 37.

11 Mr. Kandi filed a Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2024, in part, challenging the Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process/lack of personal jurisdiction.

13 Dkt. 38.

14 On September 5, 2024, Mr. Kandi filed the Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. 43. In this motion, Mr. Kandi seeks an order preventing the United States from conducting a deposition that was scheduled for September 19, 2024. Id. He again contends that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over him. Id. While Mr. Kandi’s lawyers filed the motion, the motion states that Mr. Kandi has informed the lawyers that he no longer wants them to represent him in this case. Id. The lawyers later filed a Motion for Leave to Withdraw as Counsel, which is noted for consideration on September 27, 2024. Dkt. 44. The Motion for Protective Order indicates that Mr. Kandi wants to proceed pro se. Dkt. 43. ] In its response, the United States argues that the Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 43) is || moot because it cancelled the deposition. Dkt. 45. It further contends that it has a valid || judgment against Mr. Kandi and has a right to post-judgment discovery. /d.

4 DISCUSSION 5 “The filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance — it confers || Jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects || of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 8 (1982); Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 458 (9th Cir. 1995).

9 The Notice of Appeal and Motion for Protective Order both raise issues regarding the || Court’s personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kandi. This Court is divested of jurisdiction to consider || the motion because the motion would require the Court to consider those aspects of the case that || are on appeal. Griggs at 58. The Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 43) should be stricken.

13 ORDER 14 It is ORDERED that: 15 e Mr. Kandi’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 43) IS STRICKEN.

16 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

18 Dated this 23rd day of September, 2024.

20 / bs 7p Te 1 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge