Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date from January 12, 2021 — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 94, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 94 · 2020-12-17 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ (Cal. Bar No. 251120) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Major Frauds Section 
1100 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6683 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269 
E-mail: 
Julian.L.Andre@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL A. KAHN 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Telephone: (202) 302-0539 
Facsimile: (202) 514-0152 
E-mail: 
Christopher.Fenton@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Richard Avazian” and 
    “Iuliia Zhadko,” 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN, 
  aka “Marietta Abelian” and    
      “Viktoria Kauichko,” 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” and 
TAMARA DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 
 
No. CR 20-579-SVW 
 
GOVERNMENT’S EX PARTE APPLICATION 
FOR (1) CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE 
AND (2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE 
TIME PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL 
ACT; DECLARATION OF JULIAN L. 
ANDRÉ  
 
CURRENT TRIAL DATE: 
01-12-21 
PROPOSED TRIAL DATE: 
05-04-21 
 
 
  
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 1 of 22   Page ID #:517

 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff the United States of America, by and through its 
counsel of record, the United States Attorney for the Central 
District of California, Assistant United States Attorney Julian L. 
André, and Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, 
hereby applies ex parte for entry of an order: (1) continuing the 
trial date in this matter; and (2) excluding time from the Speedy 
Trial Act calculation for excludable delay.   
This application is based upon attached memorandum of points and 
authorities, the declaration of Assistant United States Attorney 
Julian L. André, the files and records in this case, and such further 
evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 
On December 15, 2020, the government emailed counsel for all 
four defendants in this case to obtain their respective positions 
regarding a continuance of the trial date in this matter.  On 
December 15, 2020, counsel for defendant RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. 
AYVAZYAN”) advised the government via email that defendant does not 
consent to any continuance of the trial date.  As of the filing of 
the instant ex parte application, counsel for defendants MARIETTA 
TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and DADYAN have not responded to the 
government’s December 15, 2020, email.  However, on December 16, 
2020, counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN indicated in a separate email  
/// 
/// 
/// 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 2 of 22   Page ID #:518

 
3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
that their prior December 15, 2020, response was a joint response on 
behalf of all four defendants.   
Dated: December 17, 2020 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
Assistant United States Attorney 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 3 of 22   Page ID #:519

 
i 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
DESCRIPTION 
PAGE 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................ii 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES................................1 
I. 
INTRODUCTION...................................................1 
II. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..............................1 
A. 
The Pending Charges.......................................1 
B. 
Discovery.................................................3 
C. 
The Covid-19 Pandemic.....................................4 
III.  DISCUSSION.....................................................8 
IV. 
CONCLUSION....................................................14 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 4 of 22   Page ID #:520

 
ii 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
DESCRIPTION 
PAGE 
FEDERAL CASES 
Furlow v. United States,  
644 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1981)..................................11 
In re Approval of Judicial Emergency in the Central Dist. of 
Cal., 955 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2020).........................6, 9 
United States v. Burrell,  
634 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2005)..................................14 
United States v. Correa,  
182 F. Supp. 2d 326 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)...........................11 
United States v. Hale,  
685 F.3d 522 (5th Cir. 2012)..................................11 
United States v. Lewis,  
611 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2010).................................11 
United States v. Richman,  
600 F.2d 286, 292 (1st Cir. 1979).............................12 
United States v. Scott,  
245 Fed. Appx. 391 (5th Cir. 2007)............................12 
United States v. Stallings,  
701 F. App’x 164 (3d Cir. 2017)...............................11 
Zedner v. United States,  
547 U.S. 489 (2006)...........................................10 
FEDERAL STATUTES 
18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).............................................1 
18 U.S.C. § 1343....................................................1 
18 U.S.C. § 1344(2).................................................1 
18 U.S.C. § 1349....................................................1 
18 U.S.C. § 3161...............................................passim 
18 U.S.C. § 3162....................................................9 
18 U.S.C. § 3174(b)...........................................2, 5, 9 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 5 of 22   Page ID #:521

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONTINUED) 
DESCRIPTION 
PAGE 
iii 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MISCELLANEOUS 
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public 
Emergency, Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other 
Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2020).............................4, 5, 12 
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus Public 
Emergency, Order Concerning Access to Court Facilities 
(Mar. 13, 2020)................................................4 
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-05, In Re: Coronavirus Public 
Emergency, Further Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other 
Proceedings (Apr. 15, 2020)....................................4 
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public 
Emergency, Further Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other 
Proceedings (Aug. 6, 2020............................4, 5, 7, 12 
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-12, In Re: Coronavirus Public 
Emergency Order Concerning Reopening of the Southern 
Division (Sept. 14, 2020)......................................5 
C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020)....4, 5 
C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020).......4 
C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-044 (Mar. 31, 2020).......4 
C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, In Re: 
Coronavirus Public Emergency, Activation of Continuity of 
Operations Plan, at 3 (Dec. 7, 2020)..................4, 5, 7, 8 
California Department of Public Health (updated daily), 
available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/ 
DCDC/Pages/Immunization/ncov2019.aspx..........................7 
California Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020).................6 
California Regional Stay at Home Order 12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 2020)....6 
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S., Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention (updated daily), available 
at https://www.cdc.gov/ 
coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html...........7 
Safer at Home, Public Order Under City of Los Angeles Emergency 
Authority (March 19, 2020).....................................6 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 6 of 22   Page ID #:522

 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Defendants RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”), MARIETTA 
TERABELIAN, ARTUR AYVAZYAN (“A. AYVAYZAN”), and TAMARA DADYAN are 
charged with conspiring to fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in 
COVID-19-related disaster relief funds through two federal loan 
programs.  The trial in this matter is currently scheduled for 
January 12, 2021.  Because trials in this district are currently 
suspended due to the impact of COVID-19 and are unlikely to resume 
until March 2021 at the very earliest, the government seeks an order 
from this Court: (1) continuing the trial to May 4, 2021; and 
(2) finding that the interim time periods should be excluded from the 
calculation of the time in which trial must commence.  The 
government, however, has no objection to the Court selecting a trial 
date in March 2021 or April 2021 if the Court believes that an 
earlier trial date would be safe and feasible given the current 
public health circumstances.   
II. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
A. 
The Pending Charges 
On November 17, 2020, a federal grand jury returned a 12-count 
indictment in United States v. Ayvazyan et al., No. CR 20-579-SVW.  
The indictment charges defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, 
A. AYVAYZAN, and DADYAN with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 
(conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire 
fraud); and 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) (bank fraud).  (CR 32.)  Defendant R. 
AYVAZYAN is also charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) 
(aggravated identity theft).  (Id.)   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 7 of 22   Page ID #:523

 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The charges in this case arise from a conspiracy to fraudulently 
obtain millions of dollars in COVID-19-related disaster relief funds 
under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and Economic Injury 
Disaster Loan Program (“EIDL”).  (CR 32.)  Among other things, 
defendants used fake, stolen, and synthetic identities, as well as 
stolen and fictitious business names, to submit fraudulent PPP and 
EIDL loan applications to financial institutions and the Small 
Business Administration (“SBA”).  (Id.)  In connection with the 
fraudulent loan applications, defendants would also make false 
statements and submit fake documents, including fake Internal Revenue 
Service (“IRS”) forms and fake California Drivers’ Licenses (“CA 
DL”).  (Id.)  Defendants then used the fraudulently obtained disaster 
relief funds for their own personal benefit, including to purchase 
the $3.25 million luxury home in which defendants R. AYVAZYAN and 
TERABELIAN currently reside.  (Id.) 
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN first appeared before a 
judicial officer of the Court in which the charges in this case were 
pending on December 4, 2020.  (CR 80, CR 86.)  The Speedy Trial Act, 
18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, 3174(b), requires that the trials of defendants R. 
AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN commence on or before June 2, 2021. 
Defendants A. AYVAZYAN and DADYAN first appeared before a 
judicial officer of the Court in which the charges in this case were 
pending on November 5, 2020.  (CR 5, CR 20.)  The Speedy Trial Act, 
18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, 3174(b), requires that the trials of defendants A. 
AYVAZYAN and DADYAN commence on or before May 16, 2021.   
All four defendants in this case are currently released on bond 
pending trial.  (See CR 5, CR 20, CR 80, CR 86.)   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 8 of 22   Page ID #:524

 
3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On December 3 and 4, 2020, the Court set this case for trial on 
January 12, 2021.  (See, e.g., CR 60.)  The government estimates that 
its case-in-chief in this matter will last approximately five to 
seven days.  All four defendants are joined for trial and a severance 
has neither been sought nor granted.   
B. 
Discovery 
The government has been working diligently to produce discovery 
to defendants in a timely manner.  To date, the government has 
produced approximately 3,834 pages of discovery to defendants in this 
case, including financial records, reports, and other documents, and 
anticipates producing additional written discovery materials to 
defendants by December 21, 2021.  The government will then produce 
any other discovery materials to which defendants are entitled on a 
rolling basis as soon as the materials are processed, bates-labeled, 
and available for production.   
Additionally, on December 17, 2020, the government is making 
documentary evidence seized during the execution of 11 search 
warrants on November 5, 2020, available for the defendants’ counsel 
to inspect and copy at the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 
(“FBI’s”) office.   
Finally, the government seized a number of digital devices 
during the execution of search warrants in connection with this 
investigation.  The FBI’s Computer Analysis and Response Team is 
currently imaging and processing these digital devices, and will be 
providing defendants with complete copies of the devices on a rolling 
basis as soon as they become available.  The government anticipates 
providing the defendants with copies approximately six of these 
digital devices during the week of December 21, 2020.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 9 of 22   Page ID #:525

 
4 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. 
The Covid-19 Pandemic 
On March 13, 2020, following the President’s declaration of a 
national emergency in response to COVID-19, the Court entered a 
General Order suspending jury selection and jury trials.  C.D. Cal. 
General Order No. 20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order 
Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2020).  That 
suspension remains in place until a “date to be determined.”  C.D. 
Cal. General Order No. 20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, 
Further Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Aug. 6, 
2020); see also C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, In Re: 
Coronavirus Public Emergency, Activation of Continuity of Operations 
Plan, at 3 (Dec. 7, 2020) (“Jury trials remain suspended.”). 
Also on March 13, 2020, the Court imposed health- and travel-
related limitations on access to Court facilities.  C.D. Cal. General 
Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order 
Concerning Access to Court Facilities (Mar. 13, 2020).  On March 19, 
2020, by Order of the Chief Judge, the Court implemented its 
Continuity of Operations (”COOP”) Plan, closing all Central District 
of California courthouses to the public (except for hearings on 
criminal duty matters) and taking other emergency actions.  C.D. Cal. 
Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020).  On March 29, 
2020, the Court authorized video-teleconference and telephonic 
hearings.  C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 
2020).  Two days later, on March 31, 2020, the Court suspended all 
grand-jury proceedings.  C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-
044 (Mar. 31, 2020).  That suspension was subsequently extended 
through June 1, 2020.  C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-05, In Re: 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 10 of 22   Page ID
#:526

 
5 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Coronavirus Public Emergency, Further Order Concerning Jury Trials 
and Other Proceedings at 3 ¶ 7 (Apr. 15, 2020). 
On August 6 and September 14, 2020, the Court slightly relaxed 
its restrictions to permit in-person criminal hearings for defendants 
who do not consent to remote appearance and to allow up to 10 members 
of the public to attend.  General Order No. 20-09, at 2-3; C.D. Cal. 
General Order No. 20-12, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency Order 
Concerning Reopening of the Southern Division, at 2 (Sept. 14, 2020).   
However, on December 7, 2020, following “an unprecedented surge 
of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and test positivity rates in the 
Central District,” the Court reinstituted its COOP Plan.  Order of 
the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 1-2.  Pursuant to the COOP Plan, from 
December 9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. through and including January 8, 2021, 
all grand jury proceedings are suspended and court facilities are 
once again closed to the public except for hearings on certain 
criminal duty matters.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 2-3. 
These orders were imposed based on (1) the California Governor’s 
declaration of a public-health emergency in response to the spread of 
COVID-19, as well as (2) the Centers for Disease Control’s advice 
regarding reducing the possibility of exposure to the virus and 
slowing the spread of the disease.  See, e.g., General Order 20-02, 
at 1.  The Chief Judge has recognized that, during the COVID-19 
crisis, all gatherings should be limited to no more than 10 people 
and elderly and other vulnerable people should avoid person-to-person 
contact altogether.  See Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042, at 1-2.  
The Court has more broadly recognized CDC guidance advising 
“precautions to reduce the possibility of exposure to the virus and 
slow the spread of the disease[.]”  General Order 20-09, at 1. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 11 of 22   Page ID
#:527

 
6 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Consistent with this Court’s orders, the Judicial Council of the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared an emergency in the Central 
District of California, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174.  In re Approval 
of Judicial Emergency in the Central Dist. of Cal., 955 F.3d 1140 
(9th Cir. 2020).  The Judicial Council’s order recognizes that “under 
the emergency declarations of national, state, and local governments, 
as well as recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention to convene groups of no more than 10 people, the Court is 
unable to obtain an adequate spectrum of . . . grand jurors.”  Id. at 
1141. 
Local and state governments have adopted similar policies.  On 
March 19, 2020, both Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and California 
Governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency orders requiring residents to 
“stay home,” subject to limited exceptions.  California Executive 
Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020); accord Safer at Home, Public Order 
Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority ¶ 1 (March 19, 2020).  
Subject to similarly limited exceptions, all travel was prohibited.  
Safer At Home ¶ 4.  Non-essential businesses requiring in-person 
attendance by workers were ordered to cease operations.  Id. ¶ 2.  
All schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District remain closed 
to in-person classes. 
On December 3, 2020, the Acting State Public Health Officer of 
the State of California issued a Regional Stay at Home Order based on 
the “unprecedented surge in the level of community spread of COVID-
19.”  California Regional Stay at Home Order 12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 
2020).  That order went into effect on December 6, 2020 and restricts 
business and social activities, including by suspending outdoor 
restaurant operations, in California regions for which ICU bed 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 12 of 22   Page ID
#:528

 
7 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
capacity is less than 15%.  As the Chief Judge’s December 7, 2020 
Order reactivating the COOP Plan recognizes, ICU availability in the 
Southern California region, which includes the entire Central 
District of California, fell below 15% as soon as the Regional Stay 
at Home Order went into effect.  Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, 
at 2. 
As these measures all reflect, the coronavirus pandemic is a 
global emergency that is unprecedented in modern history.  As data 
from both the Centers for Disease Control and the California 
Department of Public Health reflect, the virus has spread through the 
United States community at an alarming rate.  See Coronavirus Disease 
2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S., Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (updated daily), available at https://www.cdc.gov/ 
coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/cases-in-us.html; Coronavirus 
Disease 2019 (COVID-19), California Department of Public Health 
(updated daily), available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/ 
DCDC/Pages/Immunization/ncov2019.aspx.  The death toll, across the 
world, is staggering. 
Based on these facts, the Court’s August 2020 order concluded 
that it was necessary to suspend criminal jury trials until further 
notice “in order to protect public health, and in order to reduce the 
size of public gatherings and reduce unnecessary travel.”  General 
Order 20-09, at 1.  Given the increased rates of COVID-19-related 
hospitalization and death over the 30 days preceding the August 2020 
order, the Court found that “holding jury trials substantially 
increases the chances of transmitting the Coronavirus,” and it would 
thus “place prospective jurors, defendant, attorneys, and court 
personnel at unnecessary risk.”  Id. at 3.  The Court concluded that 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 13 of 22   Page ID
#:529

 
8 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
suspending jury trials thus served the ends of justice and outweighed 
the interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial.  Id.  
The COOP Plan continues the suspension of all jury trials.  Order of 
the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 3. 
This District has not adopted any protocols for safely 
conducting jury trials once trials in this district resume.  See id. 
III. DISCUSSION 
The government requests that the Court continue the trial to May 
4, 2021, and enter an order finding that the time between November 
18, 2020, and May 4, 2021, should be excluded from the Speedy Trial 
Act calculation of the date by which trial must commence.  Given the 
continuing suspension of all jury trials under the COOP Plan; the 
closure of court facilities to the public, except for hearings on 
certain criminal duty matters, until at least January 8, 2021, 
pursuant to Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179; and the time needed 
to summons jurors for trial once the court facilities reopen, the 
government understands that March 2, 2021, is likely to be the 
earliest date upon which a trial in this matter could possibly 
commence.  It, however, remains possible that trials in this district 
may not be able to resume until April 2021 or later if the public 
health situation in this District does not improve significantly by 
January 8, 2020.  Accordingly, the government submits that a trial 
date of May 4, 2021 -- which still falls within the current Speedy 
Trial Act limitations -- is a realistic and appropriate trial date.  
A May 4, 2021, trial date would take into account the ongoing impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Court’s operations and our District, 
the defendants’ purported desire to proceed to trial as soon as 
possible, allow the Court sufficient time the Court to consider and 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 14 of 22   Page ID
#:530

 
9 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rule on any pretrial motions to be filed by defendants,1 and 
hopefully avoid the need for the Court to grant further continuances.  
The government, however, has no objection to the Court selecting an 
earlier trial date in March 2021 or April 2021 if the Court believes 
that an earlier trial date would be safe and reasonably feasible 
under the current public health circumstances.   
The Speedy Trial Act generally requires a trial to begin within 
70 days of indictment or initial appearance, whichever occurs later, 
18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), and entitles the defendant to dismissal of 
the charges (with or without prejudice) if that deadline is not met, 
§ 3162(a)(2).  However, because the Judicial Council of the Ninth 
Circuit has declared an emergency in the Central District of 
California, that clock -- in this case -- is extended to 180 days.  
Judicial Emergency, 955 F.3d at 1141.  Specifically, under the 
Judicial Council’s order and 18 U.S.C. § 3174, Speedy Trial trial-
date clocks are extended to 180 days in all cases in which 
(a) indictments or informations are filed between March 13, 2020, and 
April 13, 2021, and (b) the defendant is not being detained solely 
because he or she is awaiting trial.  See Judicial Emergency, 955 
F.3d at 1141-42.  This is such a case.   
Because defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN first appeared in 
this district on December 4, 2020, the Speedy Trial Act currently 
requires that their trials commence on or before June 2, 2021.  The 
Speedy Trial Act requires that the trial of defendants A. AYVAZYAN 
and DADYAN commence on or before May 16, 2021, because defendants A. 
                     
1 Defendant R. AYVAZYAN has already indicated that he intends to 
move to suppress certain evidence.  (See CR 63 at 2, n. 1.)  The time 
in which any such motions are pending would be automatically 
excludable under § 3161(h)(d)(1).   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 15 of 22   Page ID
#:531

 
10 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYVAYZAN and DADYAN had appeared in this district prior to the 
November 17, 2020, indictment. 
Certain periods of time, however, are excluded from the Speedy 
Trial Act’s trial clock -- regardless of that clock’s initial length.  
Id. § 3161(h).  Some periods of time are automatically excluded, 
including periods of delay resulting from the absence or 
unavailability of the defendant or an essential witness.  Id. 
§ 3161(h)(3)(A).  Other periods of time are excluded only when a 
judge continues a trial and finds, on the record, that “the ends of 
justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of 
the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”  Id. 
§ 3161(h)(7)(A). 
In this case, the time between November 18, 2020, and May 4, 
2021, should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act under the ends-of-
justice provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).2   
Although the General Orders address district-wide health 
concerns and make Speedy Trial Act findings under § 3161(h)(7)(A), 
individualized findings are nevertheless necessary in this case.  See 
General Order 20-02 at 2 ¶ 4; General Order 20-09 at 2 ¶ 6(a).  The 
Supreme Court has emphasized that the Speedy Trial Act’s ends-of-
justice provision, § 3161(h)(7)(A), “counteract[s] substantive 
openendedness with procedural strictness,” “demand[ing] on-the-record 
                     
2 Although the Speedy Trial Act time limits in this case are 
extended to 180-days pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174(b) and the Ninth 
Circuit’s judicial emergency order, Judicial Emergency, 955 F.3d at 
1141-42, the government anticipates that defendants may nevertheless 
attempt to challenge the statutory Speedy Trial Act extension.  
Accordingly, the government believes it is necessary for the Court to 
issue findings of excludable time even though the government’s 
proposed trial date falls within the extended Speedy Trial Act 
limits. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 16 of 22   Page ID
#:532

 
11 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
findings” in a continued case.  Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 
489, 500 (2006).  “[W]ithout on-the-record findings, there can be no 
exclusion under” § 3161(h)(7)(A).  Moreover, any such failure 
generally cannot be harmless.  Id. at 509. 
Judged by the plain language of the Speedy Trial Act, the 
General Orders and Chief Judge Orders require supplementation here.  
Specifically, ends-of-justice continuances are excludable only if 
“the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that 
the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best 
interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”  18 
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).  Moreover, no such period is excludable 
unless “the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either 
orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of 
justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best 
interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”  Id.  
The period must also be “specifically limited in time.”  United 
States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010). 
As the above facts reflect, the ends of justice justify 
excludable time here.  Pandemic, like natural disaster or other 
emergency, grants this Court the discretion to order an ends-of-
justice continuance.  “Although the drafters of the Speedy Trial Act 
did not provide a particular exclusion of time for such public 
emergencies (no doubt failing to contemplate, in the more innocent 
days of 1974, that emergencies such as this would ever occur), the 
discretionary interests-of-justice exclusion” certainly covers this 
situation.  United States v. Correa, 182 F. Supp. 2d 326, 329 
(S.D.N.Y. 2001) (addressing September 11 attacks); see Furlow v. 
United States, 644 F.2d 764, 767-69 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming Speedy 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 17 of 22   Page ID
#:533

 
12 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Trial exclusion after eruption of Mount St. Helens); accord United 
States v. Stallings, 701 F. App’x 164, 170-71 (3d Cir. 2017) (same, 
after prosecutor had “family emergency”); United States v. Hale, 685 
F.3d 522, 533-36 (5th Cir. 2012) (same, where case agent had 
“catastrophic family medical emergency”); United States v. Scott, 245 
Fed. Appx. 391, 394 (5th Cir. 2007) (same, after Hurricane Katrina); 
United States v. Richman, 600 F.2d 286, 292, 293-94 (1st Cir. 1979) 
(same, after a “paralyzing blizzard” and the informant was 
hospitalized). 
Here, the public health risks outlined above--and the findings 
articulated in General Orders 20-02 and 20-09--justify a continuance.  
As the President, the California governor, the Los Angeles mayor, and 
this Court’s orders have recognized, we are in the midst of a grave 
public-health emergency requiring people to take extreme measures to 
limit contact with one another.  The Central District of California 
has no established jury-trial protocol at present; instead, the Court 
has concluded that jury trials would “place prospective jurors, 
defendant, attorneys, and court personnel at unnecessary risk.”  
General Order 20-09 at 3 ¶ 6(a).  In the absence of such a district-
wide protocol, proceeding with a jury trial is unsafe. 
An ends-of-justice delay is particularly apt in this case 
because:  
 
This trial involves numerous witnesses who must travel, and 
thus would put themselves and others at risk if they were 
to come to court during this crisis.  Indeed, multiple 
public agencies have recommended against unnecessary 
travel.  Specifically, here, the government intends to call 
representatives from a number of the relevant financial 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 18 of 22   Page ID
#:534

 
13 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
institutions to testify at trial, many of whom are located 
out of state.  
 
Two of defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s attorneys from Steptoe & 
Johnson LLP live and work outside this District.  
Specifically, the government understands that Michael 
Keough works in San Francisco, California, and Nicholas 
Silverman works in Washington D.C.  Both would therefore 
need to travel to this District for trial.   
 
This case is being prosecuted jointly by the United States 
Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice’s Fraud 
Section.  Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher 
Fenton, who is serving as co-counsel on this case, would 
thus need to travel from Washington D.C. for the trial in 
this matter.  
In addition, due to the restrictions imposed by current public-
health concerns -- particularly given the complexity and document-
intensive nature of this multi-defendant case -- it is also 
unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings 
or for the trial itself within Speedy Trial Act time limits.  Indeed, 
defendants opposed the government’s request for a protective order in 
this case at least in part based on COVID-19’s impact on the 
defendants to ability to review the discovery in this case.  (CR 63 
at 14 and Ex. D.)  Moreover, there is an extensive amount of digital 
evidence that was seized in this case, which the FBI’s CART team is 
working diligently to produce to defendants as soon as possible 
despite operating with limited resources due to restrictions caused 
by the COVID-19 pandemic.  Under these unusual and emergent 
circumstances, denial of a continuance is likely to deny all counsel 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 19 of 22   Page ID
#:535

 
14 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into 
account the exercise of due diligence. 
In addition, the government notes that at least two out of the 
four defendants in this case, defendants R. AYVAZYAN and DADYAN, are 
currently prohibited from entering the federal courthouse under the 
plain language of General Order 20-03 because they were diagnosed 
with the coronavirus in November 2020.  (See, e.g., CR 63 at 3.)3  At 
this time, it is unclear whether the defendants have recovered from 
COVID-19 and, if so, whether they would be allowed to enter the 
courthouse.  To the extent defendants are unable to enter the federal 
courthouse and cannot appear or are unavailable for the current trial 
date, even with the exercise of due diligence, the relevant time 
periods would also be excludable under § 3161(h)(3)(A).  See 
generally United States v. Burrell, 634 F.3d 284, 290-93 (5th Cir. 
2005) (discussing standard).   
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
Based on the foregoing, the Court should continue the trial 
date, and enter a case-specific order finding excludable time under 
18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).  However, nothing in the Court’s order 
should preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial 
Act dictate that additional time periods are excluded from the period 
within which trial must commence.   
                     
3 In his recent ex parte application, defendant R. AYVAZYAN 
claims that he contracted COVID-19 while temporarily detained in 
Miami, Florida.  (CR 63 at 3.)  It, however, is equally likely that 
he contracted COVID-19 while he and his wife, defendant TERABELIAN, 
were travelling to and from their luxury vacation in Turks & Caicos.  
(See CR 1 at ¶ 41.)  It is unclear whether defendant TERABELIAN was 
ever diagnosed with COVID-19.  Defendant DADYAN’s counsel indicated 
that she had been diagnosed with COVID-19 during her initial 
appearance on November 5, 2020.  The government does not know whether 
defendant A. AYVAZYAN subsequently tested positive for COVID-19.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 20 of 22   Page ID
#:536

 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
I, Julian L. André, declare as follows: 
1. 
I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central 
District of California.  Together with Department of Justice Trial 
Attorney Christopher Fenton, I represent the government in United 
States v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., CR No. 20-579-SVW.  I make this 
declaration in support of the government’s ex parte application for 
entry of an order: (1) continuing the trial date in this matter; and 
(2) excluding time from the Speedy Trial Act calculation for 
excludable delay.  
2. 
On December 15, 2020, I emailed counsel for defendants 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”), MARIETTA TERABELIAN, ARTUR AYVAZYAN 
(“A. AYVAZYAN”), and TAMARA DADYAN and requested that they provide 
the government with their clients’ respective positions regarding a 
new trial date in this matter given that trials in this District are 
currently suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  The government 
also requested that counsel for each defendant advise the government 
as to any potential conflicts that would impact scheduling a new 
trial date in this matter.  The government requested that counsel 
respond to the government’s email by December 16, 2020, at 4:30 pm.   
3. 
On December 15, 2020, counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN 
responded via email and stated, among other things, that defendant R. 
AYVAZYAN does not consent to a continuance of the trial date.  
Counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN further indicated that to the 
extent the government seeks a continuance over defendant’s objection, 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN “would want the first available trial in 
March.” 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 21 of 22   Page ID
#:537

 
2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. 
As of the filing the instant ex parte application, counsel 
for defendants MARIETTA TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and DADYAN have not 
responded to the government’s December 15, 2020, email regarding a 
new trial date in this matter.  However, on the evening of December 
16, 2020, counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN sent the government a 
separate email in which he indicated that his firm’s prior December 
15, 2020, email opposing a continuance of the trial date was a “joint 
response” on behalf of all four defendants.   
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that 
this declaration is executed at Los Angeles, California, on December 
16, 2020. 
 
 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 94     Filed 12/17/20     Page 22 of 22   Page ID
#:538

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.94.0.pdf

Size

122,439 bytes

SHA-256

4b560a4cc691c977eccb87e7f83c40a829f3d3fd8d0e81b2e5c1c7178c42534d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.94.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)