Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA
RAJESH C. PATEL, ET AL. )
)
Petitioners, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
) NO.: 17CV11336-10
v. )
)
MUKESH C. PATEL, ET AL. )
)
Respondents. )
PETITIONERS JAY R. PATEL, MONICA PATEL, SONIAL R. PATEL, SHAMA R.
PATEL, MAYUR. R PATEL AND THIRD PARTIES RAJESH C. PATEL, and GBMB
HOLDINGS, LLC’S MOTION TO QUASH, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR
SANCTIONS AS TO RESPONDENT RISHI M. PATEL AS TO THE SUBPOENA TO
GBMB REAL ESTATE, LLC
COMES NOW Petitioners Jay R. Patel, Monica Patel, Sonial R. Patel, Shama R. Patel,
Mayur R. Patel (collectively, the “Petitioners”), and Third Parties GBMB Holdings, LLC (“GBMB
Holdings”) and Rajesh C. Patel (“R.C. Patel”)(collectively, the “Third Party Entities”)
(collectively, the Petitioners and Third Party Entities are referred to as the “Objecting Parties”)
and for their Motion to Quash, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions (the “Motion to Quash”)
as to the Subpoena to Non-Party for Document Production and Rule 30B6 [sic] Deposition
(“Subpoena”) sent by Respondent Rishi M. Patel on March 19, 2024 to GBMB Real Estate, shows
the Court the following:
Respondents Mukesh Patel, Rishi Patel, Ayesha Patel, and the Estate of Hasmita Patel sent
numerous Requests for Production of Documents from August 2023 to December 2023 to various
third party non-judgment debtor entities (collectively, the “RPD Recipients”), leading to numerous
Motions to Quash filed by the Petitioners, as well as several of the RPD Recipients. On January 5,
2024, this Court entered an Order appointing Audrey Berland as the Special Master to manage
discovery in this matter. The Special Master entered a Consent Scheduling Order on February 9,
2024, setting, inter alia, hearings on the various discovery issues in this matter. The first hearing
before the Special Master is now set for March 27, 2024. As part of the filings required by the
Special Master, Petitioners filed an Affidavit of R.C. Patel on March 15, 2024 in this matter, stating
that he was the sole owner of GBMB Holdings. R.C. Patel filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August
30, 2016, in that certain case styled as In re Rajesh C. Patel, US Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Georgia, Case No. 16-65074 (“Bankruptcy Case”), and received his discharge from
same on May 13, 2022. A true and correct copy of the docket of the Bankruptcy Case is attached
hereto as Exhibit A. The R.C. Patel Amended Affidavit and the Response and Rebuttal Evidence
to Respondents’ Claim of Petitioners Alleged Ownership in the Third Parties (“Response Brief”),
made it clear that GBMB Holdings and GBMB Real Estate, LLC are not Petitioners and that
Petitioners have no involvement in the transaction concerning GBMB Holdings. (Amended
Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶¶3-9).
On January 3, 2024, GBMB Holdings, LLC received title to that certain real property
located at 6405 Sugarloaf Parkway, Duluth, GA 30097 (“GBMB Property”) from GBMB Real
Estate, LLC for a purchase price of $23,500,000.00. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶4, Ex. A).
GBMB Holdings executed a security deed to GBMB Real Estate for owner-financing of the
Property, executed by R.C. Patel as the manager for GBMB Holdings, (“GBMB Security Deed”).
(Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶5, Ex. B). None of the Petitioners were guarantors for the loan
secured by the Security Deed or have or will receive any income from same. (Amended Affidavit
of R.C. Patel, ¶¶6-7). Furthermore, the Petitioners did not provide any personal financial
statements, tax returns or other financial information regarding their personal finances to GBMB
Real Estate, LLC. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶8).
Despite the R.C. Patel Affidavit and Petitioners Response Brief filed on March 15, 2024,
on March 19, 2024, Rishi Patel filed the Subpoena, seeking, inter alia, financial records of GBMB
2
Holdings, as well as financial records of RC Patel including requesting all documents “regarding
[R.C. Patel’s] pending bankruptcy case” and “whether money or financial records were being
handled by R.C. Patel…” (Subpoena, pp. 3 and 5) and requiring GBMB Real Estate to produce all
relevant documents and have a Rule 30(b)(6) representative appear with same on March 26, 2024.
The Objecting Parties sent a good faith email to counsel for Rishi Patel at 12:14 a.m. on March 20,
2024, asking that the Subpoena be withdrawn as wholly beyond the scope of post-judgment
discovery and otherwise improper (“Good Faith Email”, a true and correct copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B), but thus far Rishi Patel has not withdrawn same. Rather than
withdrawing the completely improper Subpoena, Respondent’s counsel rebuffed Petitioner’s
counsel’s good faith email by questioning whether Petitioner represented R.C. Patel, GBMB
Holdings and GBMB Real Estate. 1 Same was not an appropriate response to Petitioner’s Good
Faith Email and thus an impasse was reached.
The Objecting Parties therefore Move to Quash the Subpoena and seek a Protective Order
as to same because (1) the Subpoena seeks financial records not relevant to collection of the
Judgment against the Petitioners O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69; (2) the Subpoena violates the automatic stay
and discharge injunction as it seeks financial records of R.C. Patel, and (3) the Subpoena should
be quashed while the Special Master resolves the ongoing discovery dispute.
ARGUMENT
A. The Subpoena Seeks Irrelevant Information
O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(c) provides that a party may receive a protective order for “good
cause.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69 provides:
In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor, or his successor in
interest when that interest appears of record, may do any or all of the following:
1
Robl’s response email, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, is without merit for the reasons shown herein.
3
(1) Examine any person, including the judgment debtor by taking depositions or
propounding interrogatories;
(2) Compel the production of documents or things; and
(3) Upon a showing of reasonable necessity, obtain permission from a court of
competent jurisdiction to enter upon that part of real property belonging to or
lawfully occupied by the debtor which is not used as a residence and which property
is not bona fide in the lawful possession of another;
in the manner provided in this chapter for such discovery measures prior to
judgment.
Georgia courts interpreting this statute have limited post-judgment discovery to “any question that
seeks information which would lead to any property or sources of income of the judgment
debtor…” or fraudulent transfers from judgment debtors to third party entities, but not allowed
discovery as the finances of third party entities that are not owed by the judgment debtors. Aldridge
v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 209 S.E.2d 234, 235–36, 132 Ga.App. 788, 788 (Ga.App. 1974)(post-
judgment discovery regarding income and assets of judgment debtor was valid); See RL BB ACQ
I-GA CVL, LLC v. Workman, 798 S.E.2d 677, 681, 341 Ga.App. 127, 131 (Ga.App., 2017)(trial
court limited discovery to third parties to assets of judgment debtors or assets transferred to or
from judgment debtors)(overruled on other grounds). In addition, federal courts 2 have granted
motion for protective orders as to post-judgment subpoenas seeking information of corporate third
parties when there is no evidence of the judgment debtor’s ownership of same or of any fraudulent
transfers from the judgment debtor to the third party. Michael W. Dickinson, Inc. v. Martin Collins
Surfaces & Footings, LLC, 2012 WL 5868903, at *2 (E.D.Ky.,2012)(granted motion for protective
order when subpoenaing party could not show debtor’s ownership of third party entity or any
2
Federal case law on Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 which is substantially similar to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69 is instructive to the issue
as well. See Barnum v. Coastal Health Svcs, Inc., 288 Ga. App. 209, 215 (2007)(“The Georgia Civil Practice Act was
taken from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with slight immaterial variations its sections are substantially
identical to corresponding rules. Because of this similarity it is proper that we give consideration and great weight to
constructions placed on the Federal Rules by the federal courts”)
4
fraudulent transfers from debtor to same); see E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries,
Inc., 286 F.R.D. 288, 295 (E.D.Va., 2012)(limiting post-judgment discovery to actual ownership
of entities by judgment debtor); VFS Financing, Inc. v. Specialty Financing Corp., 2013 WL
1413024, at *4 (D.Nev.,2013)(“In general, a judgment creditor may inquire into a third-party's
knowledge of the debtor's finances and assets, but may not delve into the third-party's personal
finances and assets….” absent evidence of fraudulent transfers between the judgment debtor and
third parties)(emphasis added). Mere unevidenced suspicions or guesses that fraudulent transfers
may have occurred is not a basis for post-judgment discovery. Rock Bay, LLC v. Dist. Ct., 298
P.3d 441, 446, 129 Nev. 205, 212 (Nev., 2013)(granting motion to quash post-judgment subpoena
of third party under state law substantially identical to OCGA 9-11-69 when creditor had no
evidence of fraudulent transfers).
Furthermore, third parties have privacy rights as to their financial information which the
Court should accommodate. Hickey v. RREF BB SBL Acquisitions, LLC, 336 Ga. App. 411, 785
S.E.2d 72 (2016)(“in the discovery process, the competing interest in an individual's right to
privacy must be accommodated; this is particularly true where the information pertains to
nonparties.”); see also O.C.G.A. § 7-1-360 (setting out notice provisions required for banks to give
out financial information regarding customers).
Here, as shown by the Affidavit of R.C. Patel, GBMB Holdings is solely owned by R.C.
Patel, who is not a judgment debtor in this case (as he was discharged in the Bankruptcy Case) and
therefore Rishi Patel may not seek discovery regarding same. The Respondents have not produced
any evidence that that GBMB Holdings is owned by the Petitioners, or that it has received any
fraudulent transfers from the Petitioners. The spreadsheet produced by Respondents merely has
5
the article quoting the sellers of the property that the sale was to JMS Family Companies 3, but the
purchaser of the property was GBMB Holdings, LLC, which is solely owned by R.C. Patel not
JMS Family Companies. As R.C. Patel resides at 2253 Grady Ridge Trail, Duluth, GA 30097, it
is not strange that the PT-61 would list that as the address for GBMB Holdings, LLC. 4 Moreover,
none of the Petitioners were guarantors for the loan secured by the Security Deed or have or will
receive any income from same or provided any financial information to GBMB Real Estate for the
Note for same. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶6 and 8). Respondent’s counsel’s March 20,
2024 email to the Special Master falsely claims without any admissible evidence or support
whatsoever that “it should be understood that GMBM Real Estate LLC recently sold a multi-
million dollar property to an entity that is owned and managed by opposing parties, for which they
paid something like $8.5 Million in cash and signed a promissory note to pay another $15 Million
in one year.” Public records which Respondents and/or their counsel can easily research clearly
show that the GBMB Property is owned by GBMB Holdings and Respondents already had the
Affidavit of R.C. Patel stating that GBMB Holdings is solely owned by R.C. Patel. Respondents
sending of the Subpoena was nothing more than yet another action to tortiously interfere in the
business relations of R.C. Patel and the Third Party Entities (as defined in the prior Motions to
Quash) and to harass them and should not be countenanced by this Court. Notably, the Subpoena
does not request personal financial records related to the Petitioners, but instead merely requests
the financial records of R.C. Patel and GBMB Holdings in a fishing expedition that has no basis
or justification pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69. In addition, as the financial records of both R.C.
3
JMS Family Companies is not a legal entity in Georgia, so clearly any reference to same in a news article is not a
reflection of which entity took title to the subject property, which was GBMB Holdings, LLC.
4
The spreadsheet by the Respondents also claims that Jay Patel posted the article regarding the sale of the GBMB
Property-however, Exhibit CC produced by the Respondents does not even show that the article was posted by Jay
Patel and certainly does not claim that Jay Patel had any involvement in the GBMB Property.
6
Patel and GBMB Holdings are sought by the Subpoena, R.C. Patel and GBMB Holdings thus have
standing to object to same. Therefore, the Subpoena should be quashed.
B. The Subpoena Violates the Automatic Stay and thus is Void
Secondly, the Subpoena violates the discharge injunction and the automatic stay, as it seeks
post-judgment discovery of R.C. Patel’s finances outside of the bankruptcy court. 11 U.S.C.
362(a)(6) prohibits “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose
before the commencement of the case under this title…” Courts have interpreted this provision to
hold that post-judgment discovery against a debtor who received his discharge violates the
automatic stay. In re Benalcazar, 283 B.R. 514, 533 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.,2002)(creditor who proceeded
with post-judgment discovery as to debtor after debtor received his discharge violated the
automatic stay). In addition, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that state courts may declare
actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void. McKeen v. F.D.I.C., 549 S.E.2d 104, 106,
274 Ga. 46, 48 (Ga.,2001)(voiding county’s tax sale of a property because it violates the automatic
stay). The Subpoena clearly seeks financial records of RC Patel in an effort to enforce the
arbitration award against him, including all documents “regarding his pending bankruptcy case”
and “whether money or financial records were being handled by R.C. Patel…” (Subpoena, pp. 3
and 5). If the Subpoena was truly not targeted at the finances of R.C. Patel, then there would be no
need to mention his “financial records” or “pending bankruptcy case” and instead could only ask
about post-petition transfers to R.C. Patel from any of the Petitioners. 5 Further, there could be no
other purpose of the Subpoena since R.C. Patel is the sole owner of GBMB Holdings and none of
5
The Respondents have claimed in an email to the Special Master that they are not creditors of R.C. Patel and thus
they are not seeking post-judgment discovery as to him-however, the Arbitration Award does define R.C. Patel as one
of the Shama Parties that judgment was entered against, as shown by the Arbitration Award attached hereto as Exhibit
D.
7
the Judgment Debtors are guarantors on the loan involved or have any interest in GBMB Holdings.
Therefore, the Subpoena is in violation of the automatic stay and is void ab initio.
C. Further Post-Judgment Discovery Should Be Stayed Pending a Ruling by the
Special Master on the Motions to Quash
Finally, the Special Master is in the process of preparing for hearings on the various
Motions to Quash for the RPDs sent in this case, and at the hearing on November 9, 2023, the trial
court orally stated that discovery should be stayed while the pending Motions were resolved. In
the interest of judicial economy, the Respondents should not be permitted to send out additional
post-judgment discovery until the Special Master rules on the scope of the permitted post-judgment
discovery, as otherwise Petitioners will be forced to repeatedly file Motions to Quash, thus
expanding the scope of this post-judgment discovery dispute and increasing the costs for all parties,
without even having a ruling from the Special Master on the scope of permitted post-judgment
discovery.
Therefore, the Objecting Parties respectfully request that the Court quash the Subpoena
and issue a protective order preventing GBMB Real Estate from responding to same and issue a
protective order precluding the Respondents from sending out further post-judgment discovery
until the Special Master has made a final ruling on the permitted scope of same and grant an award
of attorney fees incurred by the Objecting Parties in having to bring this Motion to Quash.
Respectfully submitted, this the 22nd day of March, 2024.
ROGERS LAW OFFICES
/s/ Beth E. Rogers
Beth E. Rogers, Georgia Bar No. 612092
James F. F. Carroll, GA Bar No. 940350
9040 Roswell Road, Suite 205
Atlanta, GA 30350
770.685.6320; 678.990.9959 (fax)
distribution@berlawoffice.com
Attorneys for Objecting Parties
8
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA
RAJESH C. PATEL, ET AL. )
)
Petitioners, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
) NO.: 17CV11336-10
v. )
)
MUKESH C. PATEL, ET AL. )
)
Respondents. )
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH
The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to USCR 6.4, prior to filing the foregoing
Motion to Quash, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions, my office sent the Email attached
hereto as Exhibit B to Respondents’ counsel in a good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute
at issue, however, the effort to resolve this dispute by agreement failed.
/s/ James F. F. Carroll______
James F. F. Carroll
9
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA
RAJESH C. PATEL, ET AL. )
)
Petitioners, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE
) NO.: 17CV11336-10
v. )
)
MUKESH C. PATEL, ET AL. )
)
Respondents. )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of the within and
foregoing Objecting Parties’ Motion to Quash, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions and
Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel upon the following by filing said document using the Court’s
CM/ECF system or by having a copy of same placed in the United States Mail with adequate
postage thereon and properly addressed as follows:
Michael Robl
Robl Law Group, LLC
3754 Lavista Road, Suite 250
Tucker, GA 30084
michael@roblgroup.com
Counsel for Respondents
GBMB Real Estate, LLC
c/o Scott Tewes
Riverwood 100
3350 Riverwood Parkway, SE
Suite 670
Atlanta, GA 30339
This 22nd day of March, 2024.
/s/ James F.F. Carroll
James F. F. Carroll, Ga Bar No. 940350
10
11
3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE
HOLD-TRANS, DISCHARGE, APPEAL
U.S. Bankruptcy Court Exhibit A
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta)
Bankruptcy Petition #: 16-65074-lrc
Date filed: 08/30/2016
Assigned to: Judge Lisa Ritchey Craig Date reopened: 05/18/2022
Chapter 7 Debtor discharged: 05/13/2022
341 meeting: 12/08/2016
Voluntary Deadline for filing claims (govt.): 02/27/2017
Asset Deadline for objecting to discharge: 12/05/2016
Debtor disposition: Standard Discharge
Debtor represented by Howard P. Slomka
Rajesh C Patel Slipakoff & Slomka, PC
2253 Gradyridge Trail 6400 Powers Ferry Road
Duluth, GA 30097 Suite 200
GWINNETT-GA Atlanta, GA 30339
SSN / ITIN: xxx-xx-8878 404-800-4017
aka RC Patel Fax : 404-800-4017
aka Rajesh Chandubai Patel Email: howie@slomka.us
TERMINATED: 06/26/2018
Clayton A. Smith
Macey Wilensky & Hennings LLP
Suite 435
5500 Interstate North Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30328
(404) 584-1210
Fax : (404) 681-4355
Frank B. Wilensky
Macey, Wilensky & Hennings, LLP
Suite 435
5500 Interstate Parkway North
Atlanta, GA 30328
(404) 584-1234
https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 1/6
3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE
Fax : 404-681-4355
Email: fwilensky@maceywilensky.com
Trustee represented by Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
Neil C. Gordon 171 17th Street, N.W.
Taylor English Duma LLP Suite 2100
Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30363-1031
1600 Parkwood Circle SE
Atlanta, GA 30339 Neil C Gordon
404-640-5917 Taylor English Duma LLP
Suite 200
1600 Parkwood Circle SE
Atlanta, GA 30339
404-640-5917
Email: aford@taylorenglish.com
Neil C. Gordon
Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
Suite 2100
171 17th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30363
(404) 873-8596
Fax : (404) 873-8597
William Dale Matthews
Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
Suite 2100
171 17th Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30363
404-873-8500
Fax : 404-873-8671
U.S. Trustee
Office of the United States Trustee
362 Richard Russell Building
75 Ted Turner Drive, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-331-4437
https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 2/6
3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE
Interested Party represented by John W. Mills, III
Hall H2 Atlanta, LLC Barnes & Thornburg LLP
c/o Barnes & Thornburg, LLP Suite 1700
3475 Piedmont Road NE 3475 Piedmont Road, NE
Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30305
Atlanta, GA 30305 (404) 264-4030
404-264-4030 Fax : 404-264-4033
Deborah M. Perry
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, PC
500 N. Akard Street
Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75201-6659
214-855-7565
Email: dperry@munsch.com
Interested Party represented by Walter E. Jones
State Bank And Trust Company Balch & Bingham, LLP
Suite 700
30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd, NW
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 261-6020
Fax : 404 261-3656
Email: wjones@balch.com
Interested Party represented by Michael D. Robl
Hasmita Patel Robl Law Group LLC
3754 Lavista Road Suite 250
Suite 250 3754 LaVista Road
Atlanta, GA 30084 Tucker, GA 30084
404-373-5153 404-373-5153
Fax : 404-537-1761
Email: michael@roblgroup.com
Howard P. Slomka
(See above for address)
Interested Party represented by Michael D. Robl
Rishi Patel (See above for address)
3754 Lavista Road
https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 3/6
3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE
Suite 250
Tucker, GA 30084
4043735153
Interested Party represented by Bruce Z. Walker
Mahesh Patel Cohen Pollock Merlin Turner, PC
c/o Cohen Pollock Merlin Turner, PC Suite 1600
3350 Riverwood Parkway 3350 Riverwood Parkway
Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339-6401
Atlanta, GA 30339 (770) 858-1288
Email: bwalker@cpmtlaw.com
Interested Party represented by Michael D. Robl
Mukesh Patel (See above for address)
2860 Cravey Drive
Atlanta, GA 30345
Respondent represented by Bryan M. Knight
Jay Patel Knight Johnson. LLC
1360 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 1201
Atlanta, GA 30309
404-228-4822
Fax : 404-228-4821
Email: bknight@knightjohnson.com
Respondent represented by Bryan M. Knight
Shama Patel (See above for address)
2253 Grady Ridge Trail
Duluth, GA 30097
Respondent represented by Michael D. Robl
Krevolin & Horst LLC (See above for address)
1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W.
Suite 3250, One Atlantic Center
Atlanta, GA 30309
Respondent represented by Henry F. Sewell, Jr.
Asvin Patel Law Offices of Henry F. Sewell, Jr., LLC
Suite 555
https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 4/6
3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE
2964 Peachtree Road, NW
Atlanta, GA 30305
404-926-0053
Fax : 404-393-7832
Email: hsewell@sewellfirm.com
F. Robert Slotkin
Slotkin Law Firm, P.C.
118 E. Maple Street
Decatur, GA 30030
(404) 370-1041
Fax : (404) 370-1161
Email: bobby@slotkinlawfirm.com
Alexander Dewitt Weatherby
Weatherby Law Firm, PC
750 Piedmont Avenue NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
404-793-0026
Fax : 404-793-0106
Email: alex@weatherbylawfirm.com
Filing Date # Docket Text
1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7) for Individual(s) Fee $ 335, Filed by Howard P. Slomka of Slomka Law Firm on behalf of
08/30/2016 (68 pgs) Rajesh C Patel. Government Proof of Claim due by 2/27/2017. (Slomka, Howard)
2 Statement of Social Security Number (Official Form B121) (Document is restricted and can only be viewed by Court staff.)
08/30/2016 filed by Howard P. Slomka on behalf of Rajesh C Patel. (Slomka, Howard)
3
08/30/2016 (1 pg) Credit Counseling Service Certificate filed by Howard P. Slomka on behalf of Rajesh C Patel. (Slomka, Howard)
4 Receipt of Initial Docs01: Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7)(16-65074) [misc,1011aty] ( 335.00) filing fee. Receipt Number
08/30/2016 42653138. Fee Amount 335.00 (re: Doc# 1) (U.S. Treasury)
5 Notice of Meeting of Creditors (Chapter 7 - Individual - No Asset). 341 Meeting to be held on 10/05/2016 at 02:00 PM at
(2 pgs) Hearing Room 365, Atlanta. Objections for Discharge due by 12/05/2016. Financial Management Course due: 11/21/2016.
08/30/2016 (Admin.)
https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 5/6
3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE
6
09/02/2016 (4 pgs) Certificate of Mailing by BNC of Notice of Meeting of Creditors Notice Date 09/02/2016. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/03/2016)
7
09/09/2016 (3 pgs) Notice of Appearance Filed by G. Franklin Lemond Jr. on behalf of State Bank of Texas. (Lemond, G.)
8
09/22/2016 (3 pgs) Notice of Appearance Filed by Beth E. Rogers on behalf of RL BB-GA RMH, LLC. (Rogers, Beth)
9 Section 341(a) meeting reset on account of debtor's failure to appear. 341 Meeting to be held on 11/8/2016 at 03:00 PM in
10/05/2016 (1 pg) Hearing Room 366, Atlanta. (jla) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
10
10/15/2016 (3 pgs) Certificate of Mailing by BNC of Reset Ch. 7 Meeting of Creditors Notice Date 10/15/2016. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/16/2016)
https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 6/6
Exhibit B
From: Jamie Carroll
To: michael@roblgroup.com; Max Bowen
Cc: Beth Rogers
Subject: FW: STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE - Notification of Service for Case: 17CV11336, Rajesh C Patel Et
AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al for filing Notice of Filing, Envelope Number: 14588363
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:14:19 AM
Attachments: RC Patel Affidavit - FILED.pdf
Mike, we have received the below subpoena. As you know from the Affidavit of RC Patel, just filed on
Friday, March 15, in this matter, GBMB Holdings, LLC belongs solely to RC Patel, not any of the
judgment debtors on the Arbitration Award, and thus you are not permitted to seek post-judgment
discovery regarding same. VFS Financing, Inc. v. Specialty Financing Corp., 2013 WL 1413024,
at *4 (D.Nev.,2013)(“In general, a judgment creditor may inquire into a third-party's knowledge
of the debtor's finances and assets, but may not delve into the third-party's personal finances
and assets….” absent evidence of fraudulent transfers between the judgment debtor and third
parties); RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. Workman, 798 S.E.2d 677, 681, 341 Ga.App. 127, 131
(Ga.App., 2017)(trial court limited discovery to third parties to assets of judgment debtors or
assets transferred to or from judgment debtors)(overruled on other grounds).
In addition, as you know, RC Patel filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August 30, 2016, in that
certain case styled as In re Rajesh C. Patel, US Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia,
Case No. 16-65074, and received his discharge from same on May 13, 2022. Post-judgment
discovery as to the assets of the debtor after the debtor has received his discharge is in
violation of the automatic stay. In re Benalcazar, 283 B.R. 514, 533 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.,2002)
(creditor who proceeded with post-judgment discovery as to debtor after debtor received
his discharge violated the automatic stay). Here, the subpoena clearly seeks financial
records of RC Patel in an effort to enforce the arbitration award against him, including all
documents “regarding his pending bankruptcy case” and “whether money or financial
records were being handled by R.C. Patel…” Therefore, the Subpoena itself violates the
discharge injunction and the automatic stay and is void, and Rishi M. Patel is subject to
sanctions for issuing same.
Moreover, the Subpoena only provides for 7 days for GBMB to appear and produce
extensive documents, which is clearly not sufficient, even assuming GBMB was served on
March 19, 2024 with the subpoena, which there has been no evidence of. Therefore, the
subpoena is overly burdensome and unduly broad and should be quashed.
Finally, the special master did not authorize additional discovery in this matter while the
previous discovery issues are still pending, and at the last hearing, the trial judge verbally
ordered that discovery should be stayed while the motions to quash are resolved.
Therefore, the Subpooena is invalid and should be immediately withdrawn.
If you do not withdraw the Subpoena by 3:00 p.m. on March 20, 2024, we will file a Motion
to Quash same. This is a good faith effort to resolve a discovery dispute.
Jamie
From: no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 2:27 PM
To: Distribution
Subject: STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE - Notification of Service for Case: 17CV11336, Rajesh C
Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al for filing Notice of Filing, Envelope Number: 14588363
Notification of
Service
Case Number: 17CV11336
Case Style: Rajesh C Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel
Et Al
Envelope Number: 14588363
This is a notification of service for the filing listed. Please click the link below to
retrieve the submitted document.
Filing Details
Case Number 17CV11336
Case Style Rajesh C Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al
Date/Time Submitted 3/19/2024 1:59 PM EST
Filing Type Notice of Filing
Notice of Issuance of Subpoena and Notice Pursuant to
Filing Description
O.C.G.A. 7-1-360
Filed By Michael Robl
Rajesh C Patel:
Chris Anulewicz (canulewicz@bradley.com)
Other Service Contacts not associated with a party on the
case:
Jeffrey Horst (horst@khlawfirm.com)
Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA RAJESH C. PATEL, ET AL. ) ) Petitioners, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) NO.: 17CV11336-10 v. ) ) MUKESH C. PATEL, ET AL. ) ) Respondents. ) PETITIONERS JAY R. PATEL, MONICA PATEL, SONIAL R. PATEL, SHAMA R. PATEL, MAYUR. R PATEL AND THIRD PARTIES RAJESH C. PATEL, and GBMB HOLDINGS, LLC’S MOTION TO QUASH, FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND FOR SANCTIONS AS TO RESPONDENT RISHI M. PATEL AS TO THE SUBPOENA TO GBMB REAL ESTATE, LLC COMES NOW Petitioners Jay R. Patel, Monica Patel, Sonial R. Patel, Shama R. Patel, Mayur R. Patel (collectively, the “Petitioners”), and Third Parties GBMB Holdings, LLC (“GBMB Holdings”) and Rajesh C. Patel (“R.C. Patel”)(collectively, the “Third Party Entities”) (collectively, the Petitioners and Third Party Entities are referred to as the “Objecting Parties”) and for their Motion to Quash, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions (the “Motion to Quash”) as to the Subpoena to Non-Party for Document Production and Rule 30B6 [sic] Deposition (“Subpoena”) sent by Respondent Rishi M. Patel on March 19, 2024 to GBMB Real Estate, shows the Court the following: Respondents Mukesh Patel, Rishi Patel, Ayesha Patel, and the Estate of Hasmita Patel sent numerous Requests for Production of Documents from August 2023 to December 2023 to various third party non-judgment debtor entities (collectively, the “RPD Recipients”), leading to numerous Motions to Quash filed by the Petitioners, as well as several of the RPD Recipients. On January 5, 2024, this Court entered an Order appointing Audrey Berland as the Special Master to manage discovery in this matter. The Special Master entered a Consent Scheduling Order on February 9, 2024, setting, inter alia, hearings on the various discovery issues in this matter. The first hearing before the Special Master is now set for March 27, 2024. As part of the filings required by the Special Master, Petitioners filed an Affidavit of R.C. Patel on March 15, 2024 in this matter, stating that he was the sole owner of GBMB Holdings. R.C. Patel filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August 30, 2016, in that certain case styled as In re Rajesh C. Patel, US Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 16-65074 (“Bankruptcy Case”), and received his discharge from same on May 13, 2022. A true and correct copy of the docket of the Bankruptcy Case is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The R.C. Patel Amended Affidavit and the Response and Rebuttal Evidence to Respondents’ Claim of Petitioners Alleged Ownership in the Third Parties (“Response Brief”), made it clear that GBMB Holdings and GBMB Real Estate, LLC are not Petitioners and that Petitioners have no involvement in the transaction concerning GBMB Holdings. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶¶3-9). On January 3, 2024, GBMB Holdings, LLC received title to that certain real property located at 6405 Sugarloaf Parkway, Duluth, GA 30097 (“GBMB Property”) from GBMB Real Estate, LLC for a purchase price of $23,500,000.00. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶4, Ex. A). GBMB Holdings executed a security deed to GBMB Real Estate for owner-financing of the Property, executed by R.C. Patel as the manager for GBMB Holdings, (“GBMB Security Deed”). (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶5, Ex. B). None of the Petitioners were guarantors for the loan secured by the Security Deed or have or will receive any income from same. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶¶6-7). Furthermore, the Petitioners did not provide any personal financial statements, tax returns or other financial information regarding their personal finances to GBMB Real Estate, LLC. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶8). Despite the R.C. Patel Affidavit and Petitioners Response Brief filed on March 15, 2024, on March 19, 2024, Rishi Patel filed the Subpoena, seeking, inter alia, financial records of GBMB 2 Holdings, as well as financial records of RC Patel including requesting all documents “regarding [R.C. Patel’s] pending bankruptcy case” and “whether money or financial records were being handled by R.C. Patel…” (Subpoena, pp. 3 and 5) and requiring GBMB Real Estate to produce all relevant documents and have a Rule 30(b)(6) representative appear with same on March 26, 2024. The Objecting Parties sent a good faith email to counsel for Rishi Patel at 12:14 a.m. on March 20, 2024, asking that the Subpoena be withdrawn as wholly beyond the scope of post-judgment discovery and otherwise improper (“Good Faith Email”, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B), but thus far Rishi Patel has not withdrawn same. Rather than withdrawing the completely improper Subpoena, Respondent’s counsel rebuffed Petitioner’s counsel’s good faith email by questioning whether Petitioner represented R.C. Patel, GBMB Holdings and GBMB Real Estate. 1 Same was not an appropriate response to Petitioner’s Good Faith Email and thus an impasse was reached. The Objecting Parties therefore Move to Quash the Subpoena and seek a Protective Order as to same because (1) the Subpoena seeks financial records not relevant to collection of the Judgment against the Petitioners O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69; (2) the Subpoena violates the automatic stay and discharge injunction as it seeks financial records of R.C. Patel, and (3) the Subpoena should be quashed while the Special Master resolves the ongoing discovery dispute. ARGUMENT A. The Subpoena Seeks Irrelevant Information O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26(c) provides that a party may receive a protective order for “good cause.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69 provides: In aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor, or his successor in interest when that interest appears of record, may do any or all of the following: 1 Robl’s response email, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C, is without merit for the reasons shown herein. 3 (1) Examine any person, including the judgment debtor by taking depositions or propounding interrogatories; (2) Compel the production of documents or things; and (3) Upon a showing of reasonable necessity, obtain permission from a court of competent jurisdiction to enter upon that part of real property belonging to or lawfully occupied by the debtor which is not used as a residence and which property is not bona fide in the lawful possession of another; in the manner provided in this chapter for such discovery measures prior to judgment. Georgia courts interpreting this statute have limited post-judgment discovery to “any question that seeks information which would lead to any property or sources of income of the judgment debtor…” or fraudulent transfers from judgment debtors to third party entities, but not allowed discovery as the finances of third party entities that are not owed by the judgment debtors. Aldridge v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 209 S.E.2d 234, 235–36, 132 Ga.App. 788, 788 (Ga.App. 1974)(post- judgment discovery regarding income and assets of judgment debtor was valid); See RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. Workman, 798 S.E.2d 677, 681, 341 Ga.App. 127, 131 (Ga.App., 2017)(trial court limited discovery to third parties to assets of judgment debtors or assets transferred to or from judgment debtors)(overruled on other grounds). In addition, federal courts 2 have granted motion for protective orders as to post-judgment subpoenas seeking information of corporate third parties when there is no evidence of the judgment debtor’s ownership of same or of any fraudulent transfers from the judgment debtor to the third party. Michael W. Dickinson, Inc. v. Martin Collins Surfaces & Footings, LLC, 2012 WL 5868903, at *2 (E.D.Ky.,2012)(granted motion for protective order when subpoenaing party could not show debtor’s ownership of third party entity or any 2 Federal case law on Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 which is substantially similar to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69 is instructive to the issue as well. See Barnum v. Coastal Health Svcs, Inc., 288 Ga. App. 209, 215 (2007)(“The Georgia Civil Practice Act was taken from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with slight immaterial variations its sections are substantially identical to corresponding rules. Because of this similarity it is proper that we give consideration and great weight to constructions placed on the Federal Rules by the federal courts”) 4 fraudulent transfers from debtor to same); see E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., 286 F.R.D. 288, 295 (E.D.Va., 2012)(limiting post-judgment discovery to actual ownership of entities by judgment debtor); VFS Financing, Inc. v. Specialty Financing Corp., 2013 WL 1413024, at *4 (D.Nev.,2013)(“In general, a judgment creditor may inquire into a third-party's knowledge of the debtor's finances and assets, but may not delve into the third-party's personal finances and assets….” absent evidence of fraudulent transfers between the judgment debtor and third parties)(emphasis added). Mere unevidenced suspicions or guesses that fraudulent transfers may have occurred is not a basis for post-judgment discovery. Rock Bay, LLC v. Dist. Ct., 298 P.3d 441, 446, 129 Nev. 205, 212 (Nev., 2013)(granting motion to quash post-judgment subpoena of third party under state law substantially identical to OCGA 9-11-69 when creditor had no evidence of fraudulent transfers). Furthermore, third parties have privacy rights as to their financial information which the Court should accommodate. Hickey v. RREF BB SBL Acquisitions, LLC, 336 Ga. App. 411, 785 S.E.2d 72 (2016)(“in the discovery process, the competing interest in an individual's right to privacy must be accommodated; this is particularly true where the information pertains to nonparties.”); see also O.C.G.A. § 7-1-360 (setting out notice provisions required for banks to give out financial information regarding customers). Here, as shown by the Affidavit of R.C. Patel, GBMB Holdings is solely owned by R.C. Patel, who is not a judgment debtor in this case (as he was discharged in the Bankruptcy Case) and therefore Rishi Patel may not seek discovery regarding same. The Respondents have not produced any evidence that that GBMB Holdings is owned by the Petitioners, or that it has received any fraudulent transfers from the Petitioners. The spreadsheet produced by Respondents merely has 5 the article quoting the sellers of the property that the sale was to JMS Family Companies 3, but the purchaser of the property was GBMB Holdings, LLC, which is solely owned by R.C. Patel not JMS Family Companies. As R.C. Patel resides at 2253 Grady Ridge Trail, Duluth, GA 30097, it is not strange that the PT-61 would list that as the address for GBMB Holdings, LLC. 4 Moreover, none of the Petitioners were guarantors for the loan secured by the Security Deed or have or will receive any income from same or provided any financial information to GBMB Real Estate for the Note for same. (Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel, ¶6 and 8). Respondent’s counsel’s March 20, 2024 email to the Special Master falsely claims without any admissible evidence or support whatsoever that “it should be understood that GMBM Real Estate LLC recently sold a multi- million dollar property to an entity that is owned and managed by opposing parties, for which they paid something like $8.5 Million in cash and signed a promissory note to pay another $15 Million in one year.” Public records which Respondents and/or their counsel can easily research clearly show that the GBMB Property is owned by GBMB Holdings and Respondents already had the Affidavit of R.C. Patel stating that GBMB Holdings is solely owned by R.C. Patel. Respondents sending of the Subpoena was nothing more than yet another action to tortiously interfere in the business relations of R.C. Patel and the Third Party Entities (as defined in the prior Motions to Quash) and to harass them and should not be countenanced by this Court. Notably, the Subpoena does not request personal financial records related to the Petitioners, but instead merely requests the financial records of R.C. Patel and GBMB Holdings in a fishing expedition that has no basis or justification pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-69. In addition, as the financial records of both R.C. 3 JMS Family Companies is not a legal entity in Georgia, so clearly any reference to same in a news article is not a reflection of which entity took title to the subject property, which was GBMB Holdings, LLC. 4 The spreadsheet by the Respondents also claims that Jay Patel posted the article regarding the sale of the GBMB Property-however, Exhibit CC produced by the Respondents does not even show that the article was posted by Jay Patel and certainly does not claim that Jay Patel had any involvement in the GBMB Property. 6 Patel and GBMB Holdings are sought by the Subpoena, R.C. Patel and GBMB Holdings thus have standing to object to same. Therefore, the Subpoena should be quashed. B. The Subpoena Violates the Automatic Stay and thus is Void Secondly, the Subpoena violates the discharge injunction and the automatic stay, as it seeks post-judgment discovery of R.C. Patel’s finances outside of the bankruptcy court. 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(6) prohibits “any act to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title…” Courts have interpreted this provision to hold that post-judgment discovery against a debtor who received his discharge violates the automatic stay. In re Benalcazar, 283 B.R. 514, 533 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.,2002)(creditor who proceeded with post-judgment discovery as to debtor after debtor received his discharge violated the automatic stay). In addition, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that state courts may declare actions taken in violation of the automatic stay are void. McKeen v. F.D.I.C., 549 S.E.2d 104, 106, 274 Ga. 46, 48 (Ga.,2001)(voiding county’s tax sale of a property because it violates the automatic stay). The Subpoena clearly seeks financial records of RC Patel in an effort to enforce the arbitration award against him, including all documents “regarding his pending bankruptcy case” and “whether money or financial records were being handled by R.C. Patel…” (Subpoena, pp. 3 and 5). If the Subpoena was truly not targeted at the finances of R.C. Patel, then there would be no need to mention his “financial records” or “pending bankruptcy case” and instead could only ask about post-petition transfers to R.C. Patel from any of the Petitioners. 5 Further, there could be no other purpose of the Subpoena since R.C. Patel is the sole owner of GBMB Holdings and none of 5 The Respondents have claimed in an email to the Special Master that they are not creditors of R.C. Patel and thus they are not seeking post-judgment discovery as to him-however, the Arbitration Award does define R.C. Patel as one of the Shama Parties that judgment was entered against, as shown by the Arbitration Award attached hereto as Exhibit D. 7 the Judgment Debtors are guarantors on the loan involved or have any interest in GBMB Holdings. Therefore, the Subpoena is in violation of the automatic stay and is void ab initio. C. Further Post-Judgment Discovery Should Be Stayed Pending a Ruling by the Special Master on the Motions to Quash Finally, the Special Master is in the process of preparing for hearings on the various Motions to Quash for the RPDs sent in this case, and at the hearing on November 9, 2023, the trial court orally stated that discovery should be stayed while the pending Motions were resolved. In the interest of judicial economy, the Respondents should not be permitted to send out additional post-judgment discovery until the Special Master rules on the scope of the permitted post-judgment discovery, as otherwise Petitioners will be forced to repeatedly file Motions to Quash, thus expanding the scope of this post-judgment discovery dispute and increasing the costs for all parties, without even having a ruling from the Special Master on the scope of permitted post-judgment discovery. Therefore, the Objecting Parties respectfully request that the Court quash the Subpoena and issue a protective order preventing GBMB Real Estate from responding to same and issue a protective order precluding the Respondents from sending out further post-judgment discovery until the Special Master has made a final ruling on the permitted scope of same and grant an award of attorney fees incurred by the Objecting Parties in having to bring this Motion to Quash. Respectfully submitted, this the 22nd day of March, 2024. ROGERS LAW OFFICES /s/ Beth E. Rogers Beth E. Rogers, Georgia Bar No. 612092 James F. F. Carroll, GA Bar No. 940350 9040 Roswell Road, Suite 205 Atlanta, GA 30350 770.685.6320; 678.990.9959 (fax) distribution@berlawoffice.com Attorneys for Objecting Parties 8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA RAJESH C. PATEL, ET AL. ) ) Petitioners, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) NO.: 17CV11336-10 v. ) ) MUKESH C. PATEL, ET AL. ) ) Respondents. ) CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH The undersigned hereby certifies that, pursuant to USCR 6.4, prior to filing the foregoing Motion to Quash, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions, my office sent the Email attached hereto as Exhibit B to Respondents’ counsel in a good faith attempt to resolve the discovery dispute at issue, however, the effort to resolve this dispute by agreement failed. /s/ James F. F. Carroll______ James F. F. Carroll 9 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA RAJESH C. PATEL, ET AL. ) ) Petitioners, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) NO.: 17CV11336-10 v. ) ) MUKESH C. PATEL, ET AL. ) ) Respondents. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of the within and foregoing Objecting Parties’ Motion to Quash, for a Protective Order and for Sanctions and Amended Affidavit of R.C. Patel upon the following by filing said document using the Court’s CM/ECF system or by having a copy of same placed in the United States Mail with adequate postage thereon and properly addressed as follows: Michael Robl Robl Law Group, LLC 3754 Lavista Road, Suite 250 Tucker, GA 30084 michael@roblgroup.com Counsel for Respondents GBMB Real Estate, LLC c/o Scott Tewes Riverwood 100 3350 Riverwood Parkway, SE Suite 670 Atlanta, GA 30339 This 22nd day of March, 2024. /s/ James F.F. Carroll James F. F. Carroll, Ga Bar No. 940350 10 11 3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE HOLD-TRANS, DISCHARGE, APPEAL U.S. Bankruptcy Court Exhibit A Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) Bankruptcy Petition #: 16-65074-lrc Date filed: 08/30/2016 Assigned to: Judge Lisa Ritchey Craig Date reopened: 05/18/2022 Chapter 7 Debtor discharged: 05/13/2022 341 meeting: 12/08/2016 Voluntary Deadline for filing claims (govt.): 02/27/2017 Asset Deadline for objecting to discharge: 12/05/2016 Debtor disposition: Standard Discharge Debtor represented by Howard P. Slomka Rajesh C Patel Slipakoff & Slomka, PC 2253 Gradyridge Trail 6400 Powers Ferry Road Duluth, GA 30097 Suite 200 GWINNETT-GA Atlanta, GA 30339 SSN / ITIN: xxx-xx-8878 404-800-4017 aka RC Patel Fax : 404-800-4017 aka Rajesh Chandubai Patel Email: howie@slomka.us TERMINATED: 06/26/2018 Clayton A. Smith Macey Wilensky & Hennings LLP Suite 435 5500 Interstate North Parkway Atlanta, GA 30328 (404) 584-1210 Fax : (404) 681-4355 Frank B. Wilensky Macey, Wilensky & Hennings, LLP Suite 435 5500 Interstate Parkway North Atlanta, GA 30328 (404) 584-1234 https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 1/6 3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE Fax : 404-681-4355 Email: fwilensky@maceywilensky.com Trustee represented by Arnall Golden Gregory LLP Neil C. Gordon 171 17th Street, N.W. Taylor English Duma LLP Suite 2100 Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30363-1031 1600 Parkwood Circle SE Atlanta, GA 30339 Neil C Gordon 404-640-5917 Taylor English Duma LLP Suite 200 1600 Parkwood Circle SE Atlanta, GA 30339 404-640-5917 Email: aford@taylorenglish.com Neil C. Gordon Arnall Golden Gregory LLP Suite 2100 171 17th Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30363 (404) 873-8596 Fax : (404) 873-8597 William Dale Matthews Arnall Golden Gregory LLP Suite 2100 171 17th Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30363 404-873-8500 Fax : 404-873-8671 U.S. Trustee Office of the United States Trustee 362 Richard Russell Building 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 404-331-4437 https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 2/6 3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE Interested Party represented by John W. Mills, III Hall H2 Atlanta, LLC Barnes & Thornburg LLP c/o Barnes & Thornburg, LLP Suite 1700 3475 Piedmont Road NE 3475 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30305 Atlanta, GA 30305 (404) 264-4030 404-264-4030 Fax : 404-264-4033 Deborah M. Perry Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, PC 500 N. Akard Street Suite 3800 Dallas, TX 75201-6659 214-855-7565 Email: dperry@munsch.com Interested Party represented by Walter E. Jones State Bank And Trust Company Balch & Bingham, LLP Suite 700 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd, NW Atlanta, GA 30308 (404) 261-6020 Fax : 404 261-3656 Email: wjones@balch.com Interested Party represented by Michael D. Robl Hasmita Patel Robl Law Group LLC 3754 Lavista Road Suite 250 Suite 250 3754 LaVista Road Atlanta, GA 30084 Tucker, GA 30084 404-373-5153 404-373-5153 Fax : 404-537-1761 Email: michael@roblgroup.com Howard P. Slomka (See above for address) Interested Party represented by Michael D. Robl Rishi Patel (See above for address) 3754 Lavista Road https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 3/6 3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE Suite 250 Tucker, GA 30084 4043735153 Interested Party represented by Bruce Z. Walker Mahesh Patel Cohen Pollock Merlin Turner, PC c/o Cohen Pollock Merlin Turner, PC Suite 1600 3350 Riverwood Parkway 3350 Riverwood Parkway Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339-6401 Atlanta, GA 30339 (770) 858-1288 Email: bwalker@cpmtlaw.com Interested Party represented by Michael D. Robl Mukesh Patel (See above for address) 2860 Cravey Drive Atlanta, GA 30345 Respondent represented by Bryan M. Knight Jay Patel Knight Johnson. LLC 1360 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 404-228-4822 Fax : 404-228-4821 Email: bknight@knightjohnson.com Respondent represented by Bryan M. Knight Shama Patel (See above for address) 2253 Grady Ridge Trail Duluth, GA 30097 Respondent represented by Michael D. Robl Krevolin & Horst LLC (See above for address) 1201 W. Peachtree Street, N.W. Suite 3250, One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309 Respondent represented by Henry F. Sewell, Jr. Asvin Patel Law Offices of Henry F. Sewell, Jr., LLC Suite 555 https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 4/6 3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE 2964 Peachtree Road, NW Atlanta, GA 30305 404-926-0053 Fax : 404-393-7832 Email: hsewell@sewellfirm.com F. Robert Slotkin Slotkin Law Firm, P.C. 118 E. Maple Street Decatur, GA 30030 (404) 370-1041 Fax : (404) 370-1161 Email: bobby@slotkinlawfirm.com Alexander Dewitt Weatherby Weatherby Law Firm, PC 750 Piedmont Avenue NE Atlanta, GA 30308 404-793-0026 Fax : 404-793-0106 Email: alex@weatherbylawfirm.com Filing Date # Docket Text 1 Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7) for Individual(s) Fee $ 335, Filed by Howard P. Slomka of Slomka Law Firm on behalf of 08/30/2016 (68 pgs) Rajesh C Patel. Government Proof of Claim due by 2/27/2017. (Slomka, Howard) 2 Statement of Social Security Number (Official Form B121) (Document is restricted and can only be viewed by Court staff.) 08/30/2016 filed by Howard P. Slomka on behalf of Rajesh C Patel. (Slomka, Howard) 3 08/30/2016 (1 pg) Credit Counseling Service Certificate filed by Howard P. Slomka on behalf of Rajesh C Patel. (Slomka, Howard) 4 Receipt of Initial Docs01: Voluntary Petition (Chapter 7)(16-65074) [misc,1011aty] ( 335.00) filing fee. Receipt Number 08/30/2016 42653138. Fee Amount 335.00 (re: Doc# 1) (U.S. Treasury) 5 Notice of Meeting of Creditors (Chapter 7 - Individual - No Asset). 341 Meeting to be held on 10/05/2016 at 02:00 PM at (2 pgs) Hearing Room 365, Atlanta. Objections for Discharge due by 12/05/2016. Financial Management Course due: 11/21/2016. 08/30/2016 (Admin.) https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 5/6 3/22/24, 10:05 AM Georgia Northern Bankruptcy CM/ECF LIVE 6 09/02/2016 (4 pgs) Certificate of Mailing by BNC of Notice of Meeting of Creditors Notice Date 09/02/2016. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/03/2016) 7 09/09/2016 (3 pgs) Notice of Appearance Filed by G. Franklin Lemond Jr. on behalf of State Bank of Texas. (Lemond, G.) 8 09/22/2016 (3 pgs) Notice of Appearance Filed by Beth E. Rogers on behalf of RL BB-GA RMH, LLC. (Rogers, Beth) 9 Section 341(a) meeting reset on account of debtor's failure to appear. 341 Meeting to be held on 11/8/2016 at 03:00 PM in 10/05/2016 (1 pg) Hearing Room 366, Atlanta. (jla) (Entered: 10/13/2016) 10 10/15/2016 (3 pgs) Certificate of Mailing by BNC of Reset Ch. 7 Meeting of Creditors Notice Date 10/15/2016. (Admin.) (Entered: 10/16/2016) https://ecf.ganb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?142283232765485-L_1_0-1 6/6 Exhibit B From: Jamie Carroll To: michael@roblgroup.com; Max Bowen Cc: Beth Rogers Subject: FW: STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE - Notification of Service for Case: 17CV11336, Rajesh C Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al for filing Notice of Filing, Envelope Number: 14588363 Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:14:19 AM Attachments: RC Patel Affidavit - FILED.pdf Mike, we have received the below subpoena. As you know from the Affidavit of RC Patel, just filed on Friday, March 15, in this matter, GBMB Holdings, LLC belongs solely to RC Patel, not any of the judgment debtors on the Arbitration Award, and thus you are not permitted to seek post-judgment discovery regarding same. VFS Financing, Inc. v. Specialty Financing Corp., 2013 WL 1413024, at *4 (D.Nev.,2013)(“In general, a judgment creditor may inquire into a third-party's knowledge of the debtor's finances and assets, but may not delve into the third-party's personal finances and assets….” absent evidence of fraudulent transfers between the judgment debtor and third parties); RL BB ACQ I-GA CVL, LLC v. Workman, 798 S.E.2d 677, 681, 341 Ga.App. 127, 131 (Ga.App., 2017)(trial court limited discovery to third parties to assets of judgment debtors or assets transferred to or from judgment debtors)(overruled on other grounds). In addition, as you know, RC Patel filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August 30, 2016, in that certain case styled as In re Rajesh C. Patel, US Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Georgia, Case No. 16-65074, and received his discharge from same on May 13, 2022. Post-judgment discovery as to the assets of the debtor after the debtor has received his discharge is in violation of the automatic stay. In re Benalcazar, 283 B.R. 514, 533 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ill.,2002) (creditor who proceeded with post-judgment discovery as to debtor after debtor received his discharge violated the automatic stay). Here, the subpoena clearly seeks financial records of RC Patel in an effort to enforce the arbitration award against him, including all documents “regarding his pending bankruptcy case” and “whether money or financial records were being handled by R.C. Patel…” Therefore, the Subpoena itself violates the discharge injunction and the automatic stay and is void, and Rishi M. Patel is subject to sanctions for issuing same. Moreover, the Subpoena only provides for 7 days for GBMB to appear and produce extensive documents, which is clearly not sufficient, even assuming GBMB was served on March 19, 2024 with the subpoena, which there has been no evidence of. Therefore, the subpoena is overly burdensome and unduly broad and should be quashed. Finally, the special master did not authorize additional discovery in this matter while the previous discovery issues are still pending, and at the last hearing, the trial judge verbally ordered that discovery should be stayed while the motions to quash are resolved. Therefore, the Subpooena is invalid and should be immediately withdrawn. If you do not withdraw the Subpoena by 3:00 p.m. on March 20, 2024, we will file a Motion to Quash same. This is a good faith effort to resolve a discovery dispute. Jamie From: no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 2:27 PM To: Distribution Subject: STATUTORY ELECTRONIC SERVICE - Notification of Service for Case: 17CV11336, Rajesh C Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al for filing Notice of Filing, Envelope Number: 14588363 Notification of Service Case Number: 17CV11336 Case Style: Rajesh C Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al Envelope Number: 14588363 This is a notification of service for the filing listed. Please click the link below to retrieve the submitted document. Filing Details Case Number 17CV11336 Case Style Rajesh C Patel Et AlVSMukesh C Patel Et Al Date/Time Submitted 3/19/2024 1:59 PM EST Filing Type Notice of Filing Notice of Issuance of Subpoena and Notice Pursuant to Filing Description O.C.G.A. 7-1-360 Filed By Michael Robl Rajesh C Patel: Chris Anulewicz (canulewicz@bradley.com) Other Service Contacts not associated with a party on the case: Jeffrey Horst (horst@khlawfirm.com)