MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. v. Tylt, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02250
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-02250-CDS-MDC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 6 vs. MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR 7 EXAMINATIONS (ECF NOS. 112, 113)

Tylt, Inc., 8 Defendant. 9 10 Plaintiff filed two Judgment Debtor Examination Motions (ECF Nos. 112, 113) (“Judgment 11 Debtor Motions”). The Court GRANTS the Judgment Debtor Motions for the reasons below. 12 I. BACKGROUND 13 This is a case where defendant Tylt, Inc. (“Tylt, Inc.”) allegedly failed to make its contractually 14 obligated payments to plaintiff MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. (“MGM”). The Court 15 granted MGM’s Motion for Summary Judgment on September 14, 2023. ECF No. 94. MGM then 16 obtained Judgment against Tylt, Inc. on January 30, 2024, for $918,020.10 in total. ECF No. 102. 17 However, MGM has not received any portion of the Judgment from Tylt, Inc. as of the date of this 18 Order. 19 MGM filed its first Judgment Debtor Examination Motion (“First Motion”) (ECF No. 103) on 20 March 18, 2025, to compel Tylt, Inc. to produce certain documents and a FRCP 30(b)(6) designee. ECF 21 No. 103. The Court denied the First Motion without prejudice because Tylt, Inc. has been terminated as 22 an entity since October 31, 2023, and has no representatives to confer with counsel. ECF No. 106. MGM 23 then filed two ex-parte Motions (ECF Nos. 107, 108) to aid in their Judgment collection. ECF No. 107, 24 108. The Court denied the Motions without prejudice because plaintiffs failed to provide authority for 25 1 1 filing ex-parte. ECF No. 111. MGM subsequently filed the Judgment Debtor Motions in the ordinary 2 course. ECF Nos. 112, 113. Defendant did not respond to the Judgment Debtor Motions. 3 II. GENERAL LEGAL STANDARD 4 Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[i]n aid of the judgment or 5 execution . . . the judgment creditor . . . may obtain discovery from any person - including the judgment 6 debtor - as provided in these rules or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. 7 Civ. Pro. 69. Rule 69 “permits discovery from the judgment debtor and/or third persons.” Montgomery 8 v. Etreppid Technologies, LLC, 2009 WL 465941, *1 (D.Nev. Feb. 25, 2009) (citing Danning v. Lavine, 9 572 F.2d 1386, 1389-90 (9th Cir.1978); 1st Technology, LLC v. Rational Enterprises LTDA, 2007 WL 10 5596692, *4 (D.Nev. 2007). “The scope of post-judgment discovery is broad,” including discovery 11 regarding the transfer of debtor’s assets. British Intern. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Seguros La Republica, S.A. 200 12 F.R.D. 586, 588 (W.D.Tex. 2000). Such broad discovery includes third-party discovery. Caisson Corp. 13 v. Cnty. W. Bldg. Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331, 335 (E.D. Pa. 1974) ("There is no doubt that third parties can be 14 examined in relation to the financial affairs of the judgment debtor."). 15 III. ANALYSIS 16 MGM seeks post judgment discovery from Ramin Rostami, CEO and founder of Tylt, Inc., and 17 Midwest Trading which acquired Tylt in 2023. ECF Nos. 112, 113. Specifically, MGM requests that Mr. 18 Rostami and Midwest Trading appear for remote examinations and for both parties to produce relevant 19 documents to enable it to collect the Judgment amount. ECF No. 112, 113. MGM notes that Mr. 20 Rostami registered Tylt, LLC one day before Tylt was terminated and that some of Tylt, Inc.’s assets 21 may have been transferred to Tylt, LLC before either or both companies were acquired by Midwest 22 Trading. ECF Nos. 112, 113. It claims that a remote examination and discovery of relevant document 23 would help to track were Tylt, Inc.’s assets were transferred to. ECF No. 112, 113. Tylt, Inc., Mr 24 Rostami, and Midwest trading did not respond to the Judgment Debtor Motions or otherwise address its 25 2 1 || ability and authority to proceed with the discovery requested given the circumstances. See e.g., LR 7- 2 || 2(d) (providing that failure of party to provide points and authorities in support of or in opposition to a 3 || motion constitutes consent to denying or granting the motion, respectively). 4 ACCORDINGLY, and for good cause shown, 5 IT IS ORDERED that: 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination regarding Ramin Rostami (ECF No. 112) 7 || and Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination regarding Midwest Trading (ECF No. 113) is 8 || GRANTED. Plaintiff may pursue post judgment discovery as outlined in the Judgment Debtor Motions. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED November 19, 2025. □□□ - J? I

B Ufiited mapas Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25