REPLY IN SUPPORT Second EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Trial Date from 05/04/2021… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 275)

Summary

An eight-page Government's Reply in Support of Its Ex Parte Application for Continuance of Trial Date and Findings of Excludable Time (CR 264) in United States of America v. Richard Ayvazyan, et al., Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, in the Central District of California, filed April 9, 2021 as Document 275. Responding to the opposition (CR 267), the government opposes an April 15, 2021 deadline to disclose witness and exhibit lists, saying defendants have filed six pending motions to suppress or exclude evidence. The reply distinguishes United States v. Cai, No. CR 19-761-JFW, and argues that defendants' request for dismissal or a warning under Rule 48(b) fails for lack of forewarning, prosecutorial misconduct, or prejudice. It asks the court to continue the trial date from May 4, 2021 to August 24, 2021.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

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
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
SCOTT PAETTY (Cal. Bar No. 274719) 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN (Cal. Bar No. 274850) 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
Major Frauds/Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Sections 
1100/1300 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6527/3819 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269/0141 
E-mail: 
Scott.Paetty@usdoj.gov/Brian.Faerstein@usdoj.gov 
DANIEL S. 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) 320-0539 
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, 
MANUK GRIGORYAN, 
  aka “Mike Grigoryan,” and 
“Anton Kudiumov,” 
ARMAN HAYRAPETYAN, 
No. CR 20-579(A)-SVW 
GOVERNMENT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 
ITS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR 
(1) CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND
(2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME
PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT  
GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE 
TO FILE REPLY BRIEF FILED 
CONNCURRENTLY HEREWITH 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 1 of 8   Page ID
#:2320

 
 
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
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
aka “Edvard Paronian” and 
    “Edward Paronyan,” and 
VAHE DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 
  
 
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 Attorneys Scott 
Paetty and Brian Faerstein, and Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
Christopher Fenton, hereby submits its reply brief in support of its 
previously filed ex parte application for entry of an order: 
(1) continuing the trial date in this matter from May 4, 2021, to 
August 24, 2021; and (2) excluding time from the Speedy Trial Act 
calculation for excludable delay (CR 264).  
This reply brief responds to certain arguments that defendants 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, MARIETTA TERABELIAN, ARTUR AYVAZYAN, and TAMARA 
DADYAN, joined by defendants MANUK GRIGORYAN, EDVARD PARONYAN, and 
VAHE DADYAN, made in their opposition (CR 267).  Specifically, the 
reply addresses (1) defendants’ request that the Court set a deadline 
of April 15, 2021, for the government to disclose its witness and 
exhibit lists; and (2) defendants’ argument for dismissal under Rule 
48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  This reply is 
based upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the  
// 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 2 of 8   Page ID
#:2321

 
 
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
files and records in this case, and such further evidence and 
argument as the Court may permit.   
Dated: April 9, 2021 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
TRACY L. WILKISON 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
SCOTT PAETTY 
BRIAN FAERSTEIN 
Assistant United States Attorneys 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 3 of 8   Page ID
#:2322

 
 
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 
Defendants RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”), MARIETTA 
TERABELIAN, ARTUR AYVAZYAN (“A. AYVAYZAN”), and TAMARA DADYAN (“T. 
DADYAN”), joined by defendants MANUK GRIGORYAN, EDVARD PARONYAN, and 
VAHE DADYAN (“V. DADYAN”), have filed an opposition (the 
“Opposition”, CR 267) to the government’s ex parte application to 
continue the trial date to August 24, 2021, and exclude time under 
the Speedy Trial Act (CR 264).  The government will not address 
defendants’ substantive objections to the merits of its ex parte 
application, other than to say that although a phased reopening of 
the courts in this district is forthcoming, the Opposition ignores 
the realities of the backlog of cases the Court will need to address 
in the coming months, many of which have been pending for a much 
longer time than this case and have defendants who have remained in 
custody during the entire pandemic. 
Defendants’ Opposition also raises two issues not contemplated 
by the relief sought in the government’s ex parte application: 
(1) defendants’ request that the Court set a deadline of April 15, 
2021, for the government to disclose its witness and exhibit lists; 
and (2) defendants’ argument for dismissal under Rule 48(b) of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Because these demands introduce 
new issues outside the scope of the government’s request for a new 
and realistic trial date and an accompanying exclusion of time, the 
government replies briefly to each in turn.1    
                     
1 The Opposition’s baseless arguments regarding discovery 
(Opposition at 3-4) will be separately addressed in the government’s 
response to defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Motion for Order to Enforce the 
Court’s December 22, 2020 Discovery Order (CR 248), which the 
government will timely file under the local rules governing motion 
deadlines on Monday, April 12, 2021.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 4 of 8   Page ID
#:2323

 
 
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
First, the Opposition’s request that the Court impose an 
arbitrary pretrial deadline of April 15, 2021 -- one week from the 
filing date of defendants’ Opposition -- for the disclosure of the 
government’s witness and exhibit lists is tethered to the current 
trial date of May 4, 2021, which is simply not possible due to the 
pandemic.  Defendants provide no meaningful explanation for why the 
Court should depart from its standing “Order Re: Criminal Trial 
Preparation,” which calls for the government to provide three copies 
of its witness and exhibit lists on the first day of trial.2  Nor do 
defendants provide any rational basis for the Court to take the 
extraordinary step of departing from its usual practice to order such 
disclosure two months before even the date (June 15, 2021) defendants 
propose for trial (which the government believes is an unrealistic 
date given the practicalities facing the courts and for the reasons 
previously set forth in the government’s ex parte application).3     
Moreover, as a practical matter, defendants’ demand for an 
exhibit and witness list in one week’s time completely ignores the 
reality that defendants have filed six pending motions to suppress or 
                     
2 See Order Re: Criminal Trial Preparation, at ¶ 2, available 
at: https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents 
/SVW/AD/Order%20Re%20Criminal%20Trial%20Preparation.pdf (last viewed 
April 9, 2021). 
3 On a related note, defendant’s continuing accusation that the 
government is seeking to use COVID-19 to gain a “windfall” or “secure 
a tactical advantage” (Opposition at 1, 3, 4) is, as the government 
previously stated to this Court, baseless and offensive, particularly 
in light of the charges in this case.  Among other things, defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN and his wife, defendant TERABELIAN, are currently living 
in $3.25 million home which they purchased using COVID-19 disaster 
relief funds earmarked to save small businesses that would otherwise 
be forced to lay off their employees due to the pandemic.  (See CR 
154, Overt Acts 16, 24, 36, 44 (detailing transfers to Escrow Company 
1 to purchase Residential Property 1).)  (See CR 99-2 at 4.)  In 
filing the ex parte application, the government is trying to 
reasonably manage the risks posed by the pandemic, not profit from 
them. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 5 of 8   Page ID
#:2324

 
 
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
exclude a substantial portion of the very evidence that would be 
included on the lists that defendants seek.  (CR 130, 135, 136, 146, 
149, 153, 248.)  Defendants’ demand is counter-productive and 
threatens to waste the Court’s and government’s time and resources on 
a meaningless exercise without any coherent rationale.   
In making their demand for the April 15, 2021 disclosure of 
exhibit and witness lists, defendants rely on United States v. Cai, 
No. CR 19-761-JFW (C.D. Cal.).  Defendants’ reliance is misplaced.  
The charges in Cai were filed in December 2019, and, upon the 
parties’ stipulation, the court continued the trial date from 
February 11, 2020, to August 25, 2020.  (Cai CR 35.)  At the same 
time, the Court issued an Amended Criminal Trial Order containing 
very specific deadlines for disclosure of trial exhibits and witness 
lists, and to file pretrial motions.  (Cai CR 36.)  All of the 
parties there had notice of the schedule.  As of August 12, 2020, 
when Judge Walter declined to extend the preexisting pretrial 
deadlines in advance of the August 25, 2020, trial date, many of the 
relevant pretrial deadlines in Cai had already passed; the parties 
had already exchanged pretrial exhibit lists and defendant had filed 
his motions in limine.  (CR 98, Ex. A at 17-18.)   
This case stands in stark contrast to Cai.  Whereas the charges 
in Cai had already been pending for eight months, the charges in the 
first superseding indictment here have been pending for one month, 
and many of the new charges are based on criminal conduct that 
continued into October 2020 (money laundering conspiracy) or took 
place only recently from December 2020 into February 2021 
(concealment money laundering counts against defendant R. AYVAZYAN 
and attempted bank fraud against defendant T. DADYAN).  (CR 154 at 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 6 of 8   Page ID
#:2325

 
 
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
¶¶ 52-54, 57-59, 60-64.)  And, unlike in Cai, there are no existing 
pretrial deadlines in this case to continue, aside from the Court’s 
standard pretrial deadlines in its standing criminal trial order.  
Defendants’ demand for the Court to impose a new and, for all 
practical purposes, extraordinary pretrial disclosure deadline, with 
less than a one-week turnaround, without notice, is unsupported by 
the procedural posture of Cai and divorced from the realities of this 
case.  
Second, in response to the government’s ex parte application 
seeking to continue a trial date that is impossible as a practical 
matter, defendants make a procedurally improper request for dismissal 
under Rule 48(b) or for the issuance of a warning to the government 
to that end.  (Opposition at 2, 5.)  Dismissals under Rule 48(b) 
“should be imposed only in extreme circumstances” and are appropriate 
“only where there is delay that is purposeful or oppressive.”  United 
States v. Talbot, 51 F.3d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1995).  Such 
dismissals should only be granted after forewarning and “with 
caution”.  Id. at 187.  “The term caution is used in a non-obvious, 
technical sense and requires findings of prosecutorial misconduct and 
actual prejudice to the accused.”  United States v. Yuan Qing Jiang, 
214 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  These are high hurdles that the Opposition comes nowhere 
close to clearing.  Here, defendants cannot make the threshold 
showing of forewarning.  In addition, the government’s requested 
continuance in the midst of a global pandemic is reasonable and 
justified.  And defendants do not allege prosecutorial misconduct, 
nor could they.  Moreover, the Opposition does not allege that a 
continuance would “result[] in loss of evidence, unavailability of 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 7 of 8   Page ID
#:2326

 
 
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
witnesses, or any other circumstance that would have detracted from 
their ability to mount effective defenses.”  Id. at 1103.   
In sum, defendants’ requests for disclosure of witness and 
exhibit lists untethered to a viable trial date and raised while 
their very own pretrial motions challenging the government’s evidence 
remain pending, as well as their request for a dismissal or warning 
without any credible allegation of government misconduct, are 
unavailing.  The government has been diligent in its approach to this 
case during extraordinary circumstances and the Court should grant 
the government’s ex parte application to continue the trial date to 
August 24, 2021, and exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 275     Filed 04/09/21     Page 8 of 8   Page ID
#:2327

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.275.0.pdf

Size

34,824 bytes

SHA-256

61f8b1efdc42c7719c87e1d32e7c8fc781705f8a9a639b9e6a6468dae3dbf63a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.275.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)