402 F. App'x 194
9th Cir.2010Background
- Appellants Colin and Hedy Friedman appeal the denial of their motion to quash enforcement of a 2002 California fraud judgment registered in Arizona.
- Arizona law requires that an execution or other process cannot issue on a judgment after five years unless the judgment is renewed.
- Fidelity argued the California judgment was renewed by Arizona collection activities under § 1-215 and by a related California racketeering suit.
- The court concluded collection actions were attempts to collect the judgment, not renew it, and the racketeering suit did not renew the judgment either.
- The district court and Ninth Circuit did not consider Fidelity’s 2008 affidavit renewal or the 2007 final California judgment registration, due to lack of below rulings and briefing.
- Because no common law action for renewal was filed within five years of entry, the judgment expired by 2008 and the district court’s denial was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What constitutes renewal under Arizona law? | Friedman: renewal by common law action is required. | Fidelity: renewal can be achieved by other recognized means. | Common law action required; collection acts not renewal. |
| Do collection actions renew the judgment? | Friedman contends collection efforts can count as renewal. | Fidelity: collection actions are enforcement, not renewal. | Collection actions do not renew; they are enforcement. |
| Does the California racketeering suit renew the judgment? | Friedman argues it may renew by related action. | Fidelity: racketeering suit is not a common law action on the judgment. | Racketeering suit does not renew the judgment. |
| Did any renewal occur via affidavit in 2008 or 2007 registration? | Potential renewal arguments raised but not briefed below. | Not addressed on appeal due to lack of below ruling and briefing. | Issues not considered on appeal. |
| What is the final disposition given no renewal within five years? | Friedman would argue against expiration. | Fidelity asserts expiration within five years unless renewed. | Judgment expired by 2008; district court reversal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Golden Gate Hotel Ass’n v. San Francisco, 18 F.3d 1482 (9th Cir. 1994) (general rule on issues not addressed below; briefing requirement)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) (general rule that a federal appellate court does not consider issues not passed upon below)