939 F. Supp. 2d 974
D. Ariz.2013Background
- Fidelity obtained a California money judgment, later totaling over $10 million with interest against Friedman, Kramer Friedman, Meshkatai, and Anita Kramer Meshkatai.
- California entered the judgment on July 12, 2002; Fidelity registered it in Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (First Arizona Registered Judgment) on November 18, 2002.
- Arizona renewal statute required renewal by November 18, 2007 to keep the judgment enforceable; Fidelity failed to timely renew with a 2007 Certification that was later vacated as untimely.
- Fidelity filed a certification in the Western District of Washington (May 26, 2011) and then registered a Washington Registered Judgment in this court (July 7, 2011) (Second Arizona Registered Judgment).
- Fidelity did not execute against defendants’ property and seeks to enforce the Washington-linked registration through subsequent re-registration in Arizona.
- Defendants move to vacate the Second Arizona Registered Judgment, arguing it creates a new judgment not capable of re-registration and that it is void for due process/personal jurisdiction reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Washington Judgment can be re-registered under § 1963. | Fidelity relies on Del Prado II to permit successive registration. | Washington Judgment is not a new registerable judgment and cannot be re-registered. | No; Washington Judgment cannot be re-registered in Arizona under § 1963. |
| What law governs the registration/re-registration (federal § 1963 vs Arizona Rule 69). | Federal § 1963 governs the registration, not Arizona law. | Arizona law should control questions touching registration. | Federal law governs registration; however, the outcome rests on the proper interpretation of § 1963 and case law distinctions. |
| Do Del Prado II and De Leon I controls apply to this case and can they be distinguished. | Del Prado II supports successive registration of the Washington Judgment. | Del Prado II is distinguishable; De Leon I governs, preventing re-registration. | Del Prado II does not control here; De Leon I governs, preventing re-registration of the Washington Judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Leon, I v. ..., 742 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Colo. 2010) (limits § 1963 to original judgments; registered judgments are not automatically re-registrable)
- Del Prado II, 602 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2010) (allows successive registration (registered judgment treated as new))
- Del Prado I, Del Prado I, 4:05-CV-234-Y (N.D. Tex. 2009) (initial rejection of successive registration; plain text § 1963 interpretation)
- Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 536 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rule 69(a) execution procedures tied to the forum state)
- Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1965) (registration may affect enforcement periods; limits acknowledged)
- Home Port Rentals, Inc. v. Intl. Yachting Group, Inc., 252 F.3d 399 (5th Cir. 2001) (registered judgments not necessarily conclusive as domestic judgments)
- Fidelity Nat. Fin. v. Friedman, 602 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2010) (renewal and registration context in related Arizona proceedings)