The Abramson Law Group, PLLC v. Cardea Capital Group, Inc.

Background

On January 22, 2025, the Clerk of Court entered judgment for The Abramson Law Group, PLLC against Cardea Capital Group, Inc., Cardea Capital Advisors, LLC, Cardea Corporate Holdings, Inc., and Cardea Holdings USA, LLC. Abramson registered the judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where the opinion states the defendants are located. Abramson represented that the defendants had not satisfied the judgment.

Requested Discovery

Abramson asked the court to require the defendants to appear for depositions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The requested discovery concerned the defendants’ assets and was intended to provide information needed to enforce the judgment. Abramson said it served deposition notices by emailing them to Jared Gurfein, who purported to represent the defendants; mailing them to the defendants’ last known business address; and emailing them to Jordan Waring, identified as the defendants’ principal. Abramson said follow-up emails to Gurfein and Waring produced no response.

Applicable Rules

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 governs discovery after a judgment. Rule 69(a)(2) allows a judgment creditor to obtain discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, to assist with enforcing the judgment. Rule 30(b)(6) allows a party to notify a corporation or other entity that it must designate a representative to testify about specified subjects.

Order

Judge Analisa Torres stated that Abramson appeared to have satisfied the requirements of Rule 30(b)(6), as applied through Rule 69(a)(2). The order did not finally grant or deny Abramson’s request for the depositions. Instead, it required the defendants to file any opposition by June 16, 2025, and Abramson to file any reply by June 20, 2025. It also required Abramson, by June 10, 2025, to serve copies of the order on the defendants by first-class mail and to email a copy to Gurfein and Waring.