Case Number: GC049845 Hearing Date: April 11, 2014 Dept: B
Demurrer and Motion to Strike
OSC Re: Contempt
Case Management Conference
The Cross-Complaint alleges that the Cross-Complainants obtained a line of credit from the Cross-Defendants to finance the purchase of vehicles at auctions. The Cross-Complainants suffered damages because the Cross-Defendants breached fiduciary duties, a duty of loyalty, and a contract by improperly charging fees and fraudulently adding vehicles into the dealer account. In addition, the Cross-Defendants engaged in fraud by stating they would perform their duties under the contract while concealing that they were wrongfully adding vehicles to the dealer account and improperly charging fees. It also alleges that the Cross-Defendants also converted vehicles to their own possession.
The Causes of action in the Second Amended Cross-Complaint are::
1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty
2) Breach of Loyalty
3) Breach of Contract
4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
5) Fraud
6) Concealment
7) Conversion
8) Unfair Competition
9) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
This case arises from the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant, Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc., breached an agreement by failing to repay a line of credit. Defendants, Mohammad Ebrahimi, and Nabila Ebrahimi, breached an agreement to guaranty the performance of Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc.
Pasadena Auto Dealer, Mohammad Ebrahimi, and Nabila Ebrahimi then filed a Cross-Complaint against Nextgear Capital, Inc., Manheim Investments, Inc., and a number of individuals.
This hearing concerns the Cross-Defendants Next-Gear and Manheim’s demurrer and motion to strike directed at the Second Amended Cross-Complaint. In addition, the same Cross-Defendants have applied for an OSC regarding contempt concerning Nabila Ebrahimi and Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc.
1. Demurrer
The failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action is a ground for a demurrer under CCP section 430.10(e). In order to determine whether there are grounds for the demurrer, the Court examines the allegations in order to determine whether they contain the essential facts necessary to plead a valid cause of action. Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 26, 38-39. The Court assumes the truth of all material facts properly pleaded and gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. Id.
The Cross-Defendants argue that the first cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and the second cause of action for Breach of Duty of Loyalty lack sufficient facts to demonstrate that a relationship existed between the parties that would create a fiduciary duty or duty of loyalty.
The first cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty begins on page 15 at paragraph 65. To state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, the Cross-Complainants must allege the following:
1) the existence of a fiduciary relationship;
2) its breach; and
3) damage proximately caused by that breach.
Roberts v. Lomanto (2003) 112 Cal. App. 4th 1553, 1562.
The fact that in the course of a business relationship the parties reposed trust and confidence in each other does not impose any corresponding fiduciary duty in the absence of an act creating or establishing a fiduciary relationship known to law. Worldvision Enters. v. ABC (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 589, 595. The key factor in the existence of a fiduciary relationship lies in control by a person over the property of another. Vai v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Asso. (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 329, 338.
To state a cause of action for breach of the duty of loyalty, the Cross-Complainants must allege the following:
1) the existence of a relationship giving rise to a duty of loyalty;
2) one or more breaches of that duty; and
3) damage proximately caused by that breach.
Huong Que, Inc. v. Luu (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 400, 410-411.
The duty of loyalty arises not from a contract but from a relationship, e.g., the relationship of principal and agent. Id. When such a relationship arises, the agent assumes “a fiduciary duty to act loyally for the principal’s benefit in all matters connected with the agency relationship.” Id.
The Cross-Complainants allege in paragraph 19 that DSC, which is defined in paragraph 4 to include Nextgear Capital, Inc., is an inventory financing company that works with retail vehicle sale companies, such as the Cross-Complaint, to finance the purchase of vehicles from auctioneers for resale to consumers. The Cross-Complainants allege in paragraph 66 that the Cross-Defendant, DSC, had authorization to access funds from the Cross-Complainants’ bank account and were authorized to conduct transactions on behalf of the Cross-Complainants. The Cross-Complainants allege in paragraph 66 that this created a fiduciary relationship.
In paragraph 74 of the second cause of action, the Cross-Complainants allege that the Cross-Defendant, as a fiduciary, had a duty of loyalty to use the authority to access the Cross-Complainants’ bank account for the benefit of the Cross-Complainants and not for personal gain.
In paragraph 68, the Cross-Complainants allege that DSC’s president, Brian Beitner, was authorized to act on behalf of DSC, was aware of the breaches, and was assisting in the fraud. In paragraph 69, the Cross-Complainants allege that DSC’s sales representative, Kevin Miller, was authorized to act on behalf of DSC and assisting in fraudulently obtaining titles for vehicles and withdrawing funds from the bank account. In paragraph 70, the Cross-Complainants allege that DSC’s sales representative, Troy Rogers, was authorized to act on behalf of DSC and was assisting in fraudulently obtaining titles for vehicles and withdrawing funds from the bank account. These allegations are assumed true and the ability to prove the allegation is of no concern for the purposes of ruling on the demurrer. Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 213-214.
These allegations indicate that the Cross-Defendant had control over the Cross-Complainants’ property through the authorization to access funds from the bank account and to conduct transactions on behalf of the Cross-Complainants. The allegations indicate that the Cross-Defendant was more than a lender of money because it did more than provide funds. The allegations plead that the Cross-Defendant had access to the Cross-Complainants’ bank account and had the power to access funds and conduct transactions. These allegations that the Cross-Defendant had control over the Cross-Complainants’ property are sufficient to demonstrate that there was a fiduciary relationship that would create a fiduciary duty and a duty of loyalty.
The Cross-Defendants argue that the relationship was of lender and borrower. The Cross-Defendants rely on the principle that a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money. Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 1089, 1096. However, the lender may be liable to the borrower when the lender actively participates in the financed enterprise beyond the domain of the usual money lender. Id.
In the pending case, the Cross-Complainant has alleged facts demonstrating that the Cross-Defendant had authorization to access funds from the Cross-Complainant’s bank account and to conduct transactions on behalf of the Cross-Complainants. This is sufficient to plead that the Cross-Defendant was actively participating in the enterprise and was exceeding the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of money. Accordingly, the pleadings are sufficient to demonstrate that there was a fiduciary relationship because the Cross-Defendant had control over the Cross-Complainant’s property and that the Cross-Defendant had fiduciary duties and a duty of loyalty.
Therefore, the Court overrules the demurrer to the first and second causes of action.
2. Motion to Strike
CCP section 436 permits the Court to strike any portions of a pleading that are improper. A motion to strike should be applied cautiously and sparingly because it is used to strike substantive defects. PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-1683. A party cannot use a motion to strike as a “line item veto.” Id.
The Cross-Defendants request that the Court strike eight portions from the Second Amended Cross-Complaint that refer to individuals who are not named as Cross-Defendants. The Cross-Defendants identify no substantive defect in naming these individuals.
For example, in paragraphs 46, 55, 63, 72, 79, and 95, there are allegations that DSC’s president, Brian Geitner, and DSC’s employees, Corey Pasek, Kevin Miller, and Troy Rogers, breached fiduciary duties and duties of loyalty. There are no claims directed at these individuals. Instead, the Cross-Complainant named these individuals because on January 29, 2014, the Court directed the Cross-Complainant to add allegations that identify the names of individuals at DSC, their authority to act, and the torts in which they engaged (see January 29, 2014 minute order, page 21). The Cross-Complainant added these allegations to comply with the Court’s order.
The Cross-Defendants also request that the Court strike allegations that Cross-Complainants have discovered that DSC executives have served time in prison and been forced to pay restitution for committing fraudulent acts similar to the fraudulent scheme in the pending case. These allegations do not create any substantive defect and the Cross-Defendants cannot use a motion to strike as a “line item veto” to remove portions of the pleadings with which it does not agree.
Therefore, the Court denies the motion to strike in its entirety because it does not identify any substantive defects in the pleadings that should be stricken.
2. Cross-Defendants’ Motion for Contempt
The Court has not set an OSC regarding contempt for this hearing. Instead, the Cross-Defendants, Nextgear Capital, Inc. and Manheim Investments, have filed an application for the Court to set an OSC regarding contempt.
a. Contempt Procedures
Civil contempt proceedings under CCP section 1209 to 1222 are criminal in nature because of the penalties that may be imposed. Raiden v. Superior Court (1949) 34 Cal.2d. 83, 86. Therefore, the constitutional rights of the accused must be protected substantially as in a criminal case, e.g., guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and innocence is presumed. There is no right to a jury trial. United Farm Workers v. Superior Court (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 212, 214-215.
The alleged contempt in the pending motion is indirect contempt because it was committed outside of the presence of the Court. Indirect contempt proceedings have four parts:
1) presentation of an affidavit;
2) issuance of OSC or warrant of attachment (bench warrant);
3) hearing; and
4) adjudication.
b. Application to Pending Case
The Cross-Defendants accuse Nabila Ebrahimi and Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc., of engaging in contempt by violating a protective order. On November 1, 2013, the Court issued a protective order that prohibited Nabila Ebrahimi and Pasadena Auto Dealer, Inc., from contacting Dealer Services Corp., Manheim Investments, Inc., AutoTrader.com, Inc., Manheim Inc., Manheim ATC, Manheim Remarketing, NextGear Capital, Cox Enterprises, and their subsidiaries concerning matters that are the subject of this litigation (see copy of order in Dodds decl., exhibit A).
The Cross-Defendants provide evidence in the declaration of Nancy Loudermilk, who is the manager of licensing and compliance at Manheim, Inc., that she received a message on February 4, 2014 that Nabila Ebrahimi had called and that Ms. Ebrahimi was requesting a callback because her identity had been stolen. Ms. Loudermilk states in paragraph 3 that she returned the call and that Ms. Ebrahimi spoke for about 30 minutes and made a number of allegations regarding this case, e.g., DSC had taken three million dollars from her bank account, Manheim is lying in the lawsuit and using forged documents in Court filings, DSC is criminal, a Manheim employee stole a title from her, and she had three attorneys helping her and that one had been assaulted for helping her.
Ms. Loudermilk states that Ms. Ebrahimi called her again on February 4, 2014, but that she terminated the phone call after about five minutes. Ms. Loudermilk states that Ms. Ebrahimi called on February 12, 2014, but that Ms. Loudermilk informed her that all communication should go through an attorney before she terminated the call.
In the opposition papers, Nabila Ebrahimi states that Manheim, Inc. has been contacting her for marketing and collection purposes. Ms. Ebrahimi states that she called customer service for Manheim on February 4, 2014 to inform them that they should not be contacting her because there is a lawsuit.
These facts indicate that there are grounds to set an OSC regarding contempt regarding Nabila Ebrahimi’s violation of the November 1, 2013 protective order. The facts in the declaration of Nancy Loudermilk frame the issues and state sufficient facts to demonstrate that Nabila Ebrahimi engaged in a contempt by contacting Manheim, Inc. Further, Nabila Ebrahimi admits in her declaration that she contacted Manheim, Inc.
Accordingly, the Court will set an OSC regarding contempt and order that the notice of the OSC and the charge of contempt be delivered to Nabila Ebrahimi by personal service.
Link to this page
June 12, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice
Southern District of California
880 Front St.
Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
Phone: (619) 546-8921
Fax: (619) 546-0720
Nabila Ebrahimi
Re: United States v. Defendant(s) Ernest Soloian, Harout Gevorgyan, Arthur Grigorian
Case Number 2013R03615 and Court Docket Number 13-CR-03479
Dear Nabila Ebrahimi:
The enclosed information is provided by the United States Department of Justice Victim Notification System (VNS). As a victim witness professional with the United States Attorney’s Office, my role is to assist you with information and services during the prosecution of this case. I am contacting you because you were identified by law enforcement as a victim during the investigation of the above criminal case.
The defendant(s), Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian, has been detained at this time.
A pretrial motion(s) hearing has been scheduled for September 15, 2014, 11:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian before Judge Barry Moskowitz. The purpose of this hearing is to clarify any outstanding issues prior to trial.
The pretrial motion(s) hearing previously scheduled for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian on July 8, 2014, 10:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA has been cancelled. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information.
The pretrial motion(s) hearing previously scheduled for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian on September 15, 2014, 02:00 PM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA has been cancelled. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information.
A status hearing is scheduled before Judge Barry Moskowitz for October 24, 2014, 02:00 PM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if there are issues that the Court needs to address and to schedule any necessary future court dates.
A trial is scheduled before Judge Barry Moskowitz on November 3, 2014, 09:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA for the case which involves defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian.
Please be aware that many criminal cases are resolved by a plea agreement between the United States Attorney’s Office and the defendant. You should also know that it is not unusual for a defendant to seek to negotiate a plea agreement shortly before a trial is scheduled to begin. Plea agreements can be made at any time and as late as the morning of trial, leaving little or no opportunity to provide notice to you of the date and time of the plea hearing. If the court schedules a plea hearing in this case, we will use our best efforts to notify you of available information as soon as practicable. If you want to inform the prosecutor of your views regarding potential plea agreements, or any other aspect of the case, please contact the prosecutor assigned to this case or me.
Unless you have received a subpoena to attend as a witness in this matter, your attendance is not required. Because of the Court’s schedule, hearing dates could change on very short notice. If you plan on attending, you may want to call the VNS Call Center or check the web site to confirm the date and time.
The sentencing previously scheduled for defendant(s) Harout Gevorgyan on June 13, 2014, 10:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 has been rescheduled by the court. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information.
The sentencing hearing for defendant(s), Harout Gevorgyan, has been set for August 4, 2014, 09:45 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 before Judge Barry Moskowitz. You are welcome to attend this proceeding; however, unless you have received a subpoena, your attendance is not required by the Court. If you plan on attending, you may want to verify the date and time by using the VNS Call Center or website. If you are a victim of the charged offense(s) and wish to speak at sentencing, please call our office well in advance of the scheduled hearing date.
A United States Probation Officer prepares a report for the Court and may contact you to discuss the impact the crime had on you financially, physically, and/or emotionally. If you are contacted, please make every effort to provide accurate and detailed information.
Because of the Court’s schedule, hearing dates could change on very short notice. If you plan on attending, you may want to call the VNS Call Center or check the website to confirm the date and time. Please note, there is a 24-hour delay in information transfer to the website.
Through the Victim Notification System (VNS) we will continue to provide you with updated scheduling and event information as the case proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this case on the VNS website at https://www.notify.usdoj.gov or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365-4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program.
You will use your Victim Identification Number (VIN) ‘4148395’ and Personal Identification Number (PIN) ‘ anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log into VNS on the website. If you are receiving notifications with multiple victim ID/PIN codes please contact the VNS Call Center. In addition, the first time you access the VNS website, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Ebrahimi.
Remember, VNS is an automated system and cannot answer questions. If you have other questions which involve this matter, please contact this office at the number listed above.
Sincerely,
Polly Montano
Victim Witness Coordinator
If you do not want to receive email notifications from the Victim Notification System (VNS) please log into the VNS Web site at https://www.notify.usdoj.gov, select “My Information”, remove your email address and click the “update” button. If you remove your email address, you will continue to receive letters from VNS except in those case which have large numbers of victims. To change your email address, select “My Information”, provide a new address and click the “update” button.
If you do not want to receive any notifications in your case, select “Stop Receiving Notifications” and follow the instructions on the screen.
If you believe you have received this email in error, please contact the office listed at top of the email message.
Please note, if this is the first notification you have received from VNS you will need to wait 4-8 hours from receipt of this email before you can login to the VNS Internet site (https://www.notify.usdoj.gov). In addition, it will also be 4-8 hours before any documents which may have been uploaded to VNS as part of this notification are available under the “Downloads/Links” section on the Web page.
Please call the Victim Notification System (VNS) Help Desk at phone number 1-866-625-1631 for assistance and questions.
contact: Jared@jaredpetersonlaw.com
nabilaebrahimi@aol.com
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL.
logo
April 18, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice
Southern District of California
880 Front St.
Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
Phone: (619) 546-8921
Fax: (619) 546-0720
Nabila Ebrahimi
Re: United States v. Defendant(s) Yelena Sklyarova
Case Number 2013R03615 and Court Docket Number 13-CR-03479
Dear Nabila Ebrahimi:
The enclosed information is provided by the United States Department of Justice Victim Notification System (VNS). As a victim witness professional with the United States Attorney’s Office, my role is to assist you with information and services during the prosecution of this case. I am contacting you because you were identified by law enforcement as a victim during the investigation of the above criminal case.
On April 17, 2014, defendant Yelena Sklyarova pled guilty to the charges listed below. Any remaining counts will be disposed of at the time of sentencing. As a result of the guilty plea, there will be no trial involving this defendant.
Number of
Charges Description of Charge(s) Disposition
1 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US Guilty
Through the Victim Notification System (VNS) we will continue to provide you with updated scheduling and event information as the case proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this case on the VNS website at https://www.notify.usdoj.gov or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365-4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program.
You will use your Victim Identification Number (VIN) ‘4148395’ and Personal Identification Number anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log into VNS on the website. If you are receiving notifications with multiple victim ID/PIN codes please contact the VNS Call Center. In addition, the first time you access the VNS website, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Ebrahimi.
Remember, VNS is an automated system and cannot answer questions. If you have other questions which involve this matter, please contact this office at the number listed above.
Sincerely,
Polly Montano
Victim Witness Coordinator
If you do not want to receive email notifications from the Victim Notification System (VNS) please log into the VNS Web site at https://www.notify.usdoj.gov, select “My Information”, remove your email address and click the “update” button. If you remove your email address, you will continue to receive letters from VNS except in those case which have large numbers of victims. To change your email address, select “My Information”, provide a new address and click the “update” button.
If you do not want to receive any notifications in your case, select “Stop Receiving Notifications” and follow the instructions on the screen.
If you believe you have received this email in error, please contact the office listed at top of the email message.
Please note, if this is the first notification you have received from VNS you will need to wait 4-8 hours from receipt of this email before you can login to the VNS Internet site (https://www.notify.usdoj.gov). In addition, it will also be 4-8 hours before any documents which may have been uploaded to VNS as part of this notification are available under the “Downloads/Links” section on the Web page.
Please call the Victim Notification System (VNS) Help Desk at phone number 1-866-625-1631 for assistance and questions.
June 12, 2014 U.S. Department of Justice
Southern District of California
880 Front St.
Room 6293
San Diego, CA 92101-8893
Phone: (619) 546-8921
Fax: (619) 546-0720
Nabila Ebrahimi
Re: United States v. Defendant(s) Ernest Soloian, Harout Gevorgyan, Arthur Grigorian
Case Number 2013R03615 and Court Docket Number 13-CR-03479
Dear Nabila Ebrahimi:
The enclosed information is provided by the United States Department of Justice Victim Notification System (VNS). As a victim witness professional with the United States Attorney’s Office, my role is to assist you with information and services during the prosecution of this case. I am contacting you because you were identified by law enforcement as a victim during the investigation of the above criminal case.
The defendant(s), Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian, has been detained at this time.
A pretrial motion(s) hearing has been scheduled for September 15, 2014, 11:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian before Judge Barry Moskowitz. The purpose of this hearing is to clarify any outstanding issues prior to trial.
The pretrial motion(s) hearing previously scheduled for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian on July 8, 2014, 10:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA has been cancelled. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information.
The pretrial motion(s) hearing previously scheduled for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian on September 15, 2014, 02:00 PM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA has been cancelled. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information.
A status hearing is scheduled before Judge Barry Moskowitz for October 24, 2014, 02:00 PM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA for defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if there are issues that the Court needs to address and to schedule any necessary future court dates.
A trial is scheduled before Judge Barry Moskowitz on November 3, 2014, 09:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA for the case which involves defendant(s) Arthur Grigorian, Ernest Soloian.
Please be aware that many criminal cases are resolved by a plea agreement between the United States Attorney’s Office and the defendant. You should also know that it is not unusual for a defendant to seek to negotiate a plea agreement shortly before a trial is scheduled to begin. Plea agreements can be made at any time and as late as the morning of trial, leaving little or no opportunity to provide notice to you of the date and time of the plea hearing. If the court schedules a plea hearing in this case, we will use our best efforts to notify you of available information as soon as practicable. If you want to inform the prosecutor of your views regarding potential plea agreements, or any other aspect of the case, please contact the prosecutor assigned to this case or me.
Unless you have received a subpoena to attend as a witness in this matter, your attendance is not required. Because of the Court’s schedule, hearing dates could change on very short notice. If you plan on attending, you may want to call the VNS Call Center or check the web site to confirm the date and time.
The sentencing previously scheduled for defendant(s) Harout Gevorgyan on June 13, 2014, 10:00 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 has been rescheduled by the court. VNS will continue to provide you with updated case scheduling and event information.
The sentencing hearing for defendant(s), Harout Gevorgyan, has been set for August 4, 2014, 09:45 AM at U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, 333 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 before Judge Barry Moskowitz. You are welcome to attend this proceeding; however, unless you have received a subpoena, your attendance is not required by the Court. If you plan on attending, you may want to verify the date and time by using the VNS Call Center or website. If you are a victim of the charged offense(s) and wish to speak at sentencing, please call our office well in advance of the scheduled hearing date.
A United States Probation Officer prepares a report for the Court and may contact you to discuss the impact the crime had on you financially, physically, and/or emotionally. If you are contacted, please make every effort to provide accurate and detailed information.
Because of the Court’s schedule, hearing dates could change on very short notice. If you plan on attending, you may want to call the VNS Call Center or check the website to confirm the date and time. Please note, there is a 24-hour delay in information transfer to the website.
Through the Victim Notification System (VNS) we will continue to provide you with updated scheduling and event information as the case proceeds through the criminal justice system. You may obtain current information about this case on the VNS website at https://www.notify.usdoj.gov or from the VNS Call Center at 1-866-DOJ-4YOU (1-866-365-4968) (TDD/TTY: 1-866-228-4619) (International: 1-502-213-2767). In addition, you may use the Call Center or Internet to update your contact information and/or change your decision about participation in the notification program.
You will use your Victim Identification Number (VIN) ‘4148395’ and Personal Identification Number anytime you contact the Call Center and the first time you log into VNS on the website. If you are receiving notifications with multiple victim ID/PIN codes please contact the VNS Call Center. In addition, the first time you access the VNS website, you will be prompted to enter your last name (or business name) as currently contained in VNS. The name you should enter is Ebrahimi.
Remember, VNS is an automated system and cannot answer questions. If you have other questions which involve this matter, please contact this office at the number listed above.
Sincerely,
Polly Montano
Victim Witness Coordinator
If you do not want to receive email notifications from the Victim Notification System (VNS) please log into the VNS Web site at https://www.notify.usdoj.gov, select “My Information”, remove your email address and click the “update” button. If you remove your email address, you will continue to receive letters from VNS except in those case which have large numbers of victims. To change your email address, select “My Information”, provide a new address and click the “update” button.
If you do not want to receive any notifications in your case, select “Stop Receiving Notifications” and follow the instructions on the screen.
If you believe you have received this email in error, please contact the office listed at top of the email message.
Please note, if this is the first notification you have received from VNS you will need to wait 4-8 hours from receipt of this email before you can login to the VNS Internet site (https://www.notify.usdoj.gov). In addition, it will also be 4-8 hours before any documents which may have been uploaded to VNS as part of this notification are available under the “Downloads/Links” section on the Web page.
Please call the Victim Notification System (VNS) Help Desk at phone number 1-866-625-1631 for assistance and questions.