Citibank, N.A. v. Aralpa Holdings Limited Partnership

Background

Citibank moved to compel Rodrigo Lebois Mateos to respond more completely to a post-judgment information subpoena. The subpoena sought information about assets listed in a June 30, 2022 personal financial statement that Lebois had submitted to Citibank in connection with Citibank’s financing. Citibank requested the location, estimated value, and title information for each asset. For categories such as jewelry, art, securities, private-equity investments, and real estate, Citibank also sought identification of each individual asset. If an asset had been transferred, Citibank requested the sale date, the asset sold, the buyer, and the sale price or other consideration received by Lebois or Aralpa Holdings Limited Partnership.

Citibank argued that the information was relevant to collecting a judgment against Lebois because the financial statement had listed his interests in the assets. Lebois opposed the motion, arguing that he had responded adequately and that Citibank was conducting an improper search for information about third-party assets. He also argued that the financial statement’s reference to “Rodrigo Lebois Mateos and Family” did not establish direct or indirect ownership. Lebois further argued that alter-ego discovery was unwarranted because many investments were located in or owned by entities in Mexico and Spain. He asked the court to pause the litigation and facilitate further mediation.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that federal and New York law generally permit broad discovery after a judgment to help a judgment creditor locate assets that may satisfy the judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2) allows discovery from any person, including the judgment debtor, when the discovery is calculated to assist in collecting the judgment. The court noted that discovery may concern the existence, transfer, location, and source of assets, although it may not be unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or burdensome.

The court held that Citibank’s requests were plainly related to tracing Lebois’s assets. It found Lebois’s argument that the financial statement did not declare ownership difficult to reconcile with the fact that the statement had been submitted as his personal financial statement. The court also noted that many of the same assets appeared on other personal financial statements that did not refer to Lebois’s family.

The court rejected the argument that Citibank had to show in advance that the assets were reachable or could be seized. A judgment creditor does not have to prove that post-judgment discovery will lead to assets that can ultimately be attached or executed against. The court also stated that veil-piercing was not the only possible way Citibank might seek recovery and that Lebois could object if Citibank later actually tried to execute against particular property. The court expressly did not decide whether the listed assets were in fact subject to recovery.

Disposition

Judge Rochon granted Citibank’s motion to compel. By April 19, 2024, Lebois was ordered to provide Citibank with a sworn response containing itemized information about all assets encompassed by the June 2022 financial statement, including each asset’s location, estimated value, and title information. For asset categories, he had to identify each individual asset. For any asset he contended had been transferred, he had to provide the sale date, asset sold, buyers, and sale price or consideration received.

The court denied Lebois’s request to institute a litigation pause and order the parties to mediate. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 111.