Pnc Equipment Finance, LLC v. Harry Carr, 22-15601

Appellant Harry Carr owned stock in Vicinity Holdings, Inc.; PNC Equipment Finance, LLC sought to collect on a judgment by registering an Ohio district-court judgment in California and obtaining an order assigning Carr’s right to payments from that stock to PNC.
The California district court entered an assignment of Carr’s right to stock payments to PNC but did not adjudicate Carr’s claim that the payments were protected as tenancy by the entirety under New Jersey law.
Carr argued the Ohio judgment was only against him (not his wife) and that New Jersey tenancy-by-the-entirety law prevented assignment of his interest or the right to payments without both spouses’ consent.
The magistrate characterized the assignment order as a “placeholder” and suggested Carr could later challenge assignability; the district court declined to resolve Carr’s exemption/tenancy-by-the-entirety defense.
The Ninth Circuit held the federal court had ancillary subject-matter jurisdiction and did not need personal jurisdiction over Carr because the originating Ohio court had both, but vacated the assignment for failure to decide Carr’s exemption claim and remanded for further proceedings (including choice-of-law and consent/fraudulent-transfer issues).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction over enforcement	Carr: California court lacked jurisdiction to enforce Ohio judgment	PNC: Ancillary jurisdiction proper because Ohio court had jurisdiction	Court: Ancillary subject-matter jurisdiction existed (Peterson)
Personal jurisdiction over Carr	Carr: California lacked personal jurisdiction over him	PNC: Enforcement relies on Ohio court’s valid exercise of personal jurisdiction	Court: Personal jurisdiction not required here because Ohio court properly exercised it (Fid. Nat’l Fin.)
Assignability of the right to stock payments (tenancy by the entirety)	Carr: New Jersey entireties law bars assignment of his payment rights absent wife’s written consent	PNC: District court treated assignment as limited to payment rights and not barred	Court: District court erred by not deciding exemption; New Jersey law likely protects payment rights and assignment requires decision on consent/fraudulent transfer (Erie analysis needed)
Procedural effect of assignment order (“placeholder”)	Carr: Assignment precludes creditors from collecting on otherwise protected rights without adjudication	PNC/Magistrate: Order is provisional; obligors may later challenge assignability	Court: Debtor must present claim of exemption before assignment; court must adjudicate exemption before issuing final assignment—vacated and remanded

Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (ancillary federal jurisdiction to enforce foreign or out-of-district judgments when originating court had jurisdiction)
Fid. Nat’l Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, 935 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2019) (enforcement proceedings need not separately establish personal jurisdiction when original court properly exercised it)
Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., 265 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying Erie and choice-of-law principles when state law may govern issues in federal ancillary enforcement)
In re Montemoino, 491 B.R. 580 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012) (tenancy-by-the-entirety protections can extend to sales proceeds and related rights)
In re Miller, 853 F.3d 508 (9th Cir. 2017) (California assignment statute interacts with choice-of-law considerations)
Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 782 F. Supp. 2d 893 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (obligors may later challenge assignment orders)
Gilchinsky v. Nat’l Westminster Bank N.J., 732 A.2d 482 (N.J. 1999) (New Jersey law on entireties, consent, and transfers)
Jimenez v. Jimenez, 185 A.3d 954 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018) (New Jersey authority on transfers and spousal consent)
Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (2015) (remand principles and that appellate courts should avoid deciding unsettled issues better addressed below)
In re J.T. Thorpe, Inc., 870 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) (remand guidance for factual and legal issues left to district courts)