United States District Court, S.D. California
MEDICAL PROVIDER FINANCIAL CORPORATION II, a Nevada corporation, and MEDICAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiffs,
SAN DIEGO CENTER FOR WOMEN'S HEALTH AND PRIMARY CARE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California corporation; ROSALYN BAXTER-JONES, M.D., an individual, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF
TED MOSKOWITZ, CHIEF JUDGE.
application for renewal of judgment has been submitted in the
above-captioned action by E.D.S. Financial Services, Inc.
(“EDS”), assignee of record of a foreign judgment
previously registered in this Court by judgment creditors
Medical Provider Financial Corporation II, a Nevada
corporation, and Medical Capital Corporation, a Nevada
corporation (the “judgment creditors”). For the
reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the application.
September 25, 2006, an order for judgment by default was
entered in favor of the Nevada judgment creditors against San
Diego Center for Women's Health and Primary Care Medical
Group, Inc., a California corporation, and Rosalyn
Baxter-Jones, M.D. (the “judgment debtors”), in
the District of Nevada.
August 17, 2007, the Nevada judgment was registered in this
District. Certification of J. for Registration in Another
Dist. (ECF No. 1). On June 27, 2011, Thomas Seaman
(“Seaman”), the court-appointed receiver for the
judgment creditors, filed an acknowledgement of assignment of
judgment indicating all remaining interest in the judgment
had been transferred to Karen Good d/b/a/ Judgment
Enforcement Bureau (“Karen Good”).
Acknowledgement of Assignment of J. (ECF No. 5.) On October
3, 2016, Seaman filed a second acknowledgement of assignment
of judgment indicating the prior assignment to Karen Good was
terminated and all remaining interest in the judgment
returned to Seaman, who in turn assigned all remaining
interest in the judgment to EDS. Acknowledgement of
Assignment of J. (ECF No. 23).
April 25, 2017, EDS filed the instant application. Although
it is labeled an application for renewal of judgment, which
tends to suggest EDS is seeking renewal of the original
judgment issued in Nevada, the body of the application
indicates EDS is actually seeking renewal of the registered
Court first considers whether it has authority to consider
the application for renewal of the registered judgment.
Nevada law imposes a six-year statute of limitations on
actions for enforcement of judgment. Nev. Rev. Stat. §
11.190(1). However, California's period for enforcement
of judgments is ten years. Cal. Code Civ. P. §§
683.020, 337.5(b). Thus, at the time EDS filed the instant
application for renewal, the original judgment had been stale
under Nevada law since September 24, 2012, but the registered
judgment was still viable under California law, and will be
until August 16, 2017.
Court finds it can consider EDS's application for renewal
of the registered judgment despite the fact that the statute
of limitations on the judgment has expired under Nevada law.
The original judgment was registered in this District
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, which provides,
A judgment in an action for the recovery of money entered in
any district court may be registered by filing a certified
copy of the judgment in any other district. A judgment so
registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the
district court of the district where registered and may be
enforced in like manner.
28 U.S.C. § 1963. “When a final judgment from one
district court is registered with another district court
pursuant to § 1963, the registered judgment must be
treated like any other judgment entered by the registering
court.” Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran,
627 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010).
§ 1963, a registered judgment is enforced as a new
judgment entered in the first instance in the court of
registration. Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. v.
Asterbadi, 841 F.3d 237, 245 (4th Cir. 2016). The
statute of limitations on a registered judgment is determined
under the law of the court of registration, and begins to run
at the time of registration. Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a)(1); Hilao
v. Estate of Marcos, 536 F.3d 980, 988 (9th Cir. 2008);
Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc., 841 F.3d at
245-46. Moreover, the registered judgment remains valid for
the duration of the statute of limitations of the registering
court, even if the original judgment becomes stale under the
statute of limitations of the forum state of the issuing
court. Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d 265, 268 (8th
Cir. 1965); Home Port Rentals v. Int'l Yachting
Group, Inc., 252 F.3d 399, 405-07 (5th Cir. 2001).
the registered judgment is the equivalent of an original
judgment, it may be renewed under the procedures for renewal
of judgment of the forum state of the court of registration.
Three related Ninth Circuit decisions are instructive in this
regard. The first two are Fidelity Nat'l Fin., Inc.
v. Friedman (“Fidelity I”), 602 F.3d 1121
(9th Cir. 2010), and Fidelity Nat'l Fin., Inc. v.
Friedman (“Fidelity II”), 402 Fed.Appx. 194
(9th Cir. 2010) (mem.). In Fidelity I, a judgment
issued in the Central District of California was registered
in federal court in Arizona, which has a five-year statute of
limitations for enforcement of judgments. Fidelity
I, 602 F.3d at 1122-23. The creditors attempted to renew
the judgment in Arizona, but their flawed efforts to follow
Arizona law in renewing the judgment led to an appeal in
which the Ninth Circuit certified two questions of Arizona
law to the Arizona Supreme Court. Id. at 1124.
Although the certified questions were answered in the
negative, and the renewal efforts thus ultimately failed
under Arizona law, in both Fidelity I and
Fidelity II, the Ninth Circuit accepted the
underlying premise that the judgment creditors could renew
the registered judgment in the federal court of registration
by following the renewal procedures of the forum state.
See id. at 1123 (“The federal court applies
state law … when renewing a judgment that has already
been registered in that state.”)
Fidelity Nat'l Fin., Inc. v. Friedman
(“Fidelity III”), 803 F.3d 999 (9th Cir.
2015), the Ninth Circuit addressed the next step in the
creditors' efforts to collect on the judgment. After
their efforts to renew the judgment in Arizona were deemed
flawed, the creditors took the original judgment (which was
still viable under California's ten-year statute of
limitations), registered it in Washington federal district
court, and then registered the Washington-registered judgment
in federal court in Arizona. Id. at 1001. The second
Arizona registered judgment was held valid and enforceable.
“By the plain language of § 1963, a registered
judgment has the ‘same effect' as an original
judgment and thus may itself be registered….”
Id. at 1002 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1963).
Applying this principle here, if a registered judgment, like
an original judgment, can be registered in another
jurisdiction, it should likewise be capable of renewal by
application to the registering District.
found that it can consider EDS's application for renewal
of the registered judgment, the Court finds the application
must nevertheless be denied because it does not satisfy the
requirements for renewal. California law, which applies to
these proceedings under Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a), has established
procedures for renewal of judgment in California Code of
Civil Procedure § 683.140. See Cal. Code Civ.
P. § 683.140; see Fidelity I, 602 F.3d at 1123
(“The federal court applies state law … when
renewing a judgment that has already been registered in that
state.”). Section 638.140 requires that “[t]he
application for renewal of the judgment shall be executed
under oath” and “shall include, ” among
other things, “[t]he name and address of the judgment
creditor and the name and last known address of the judgment
debtor, ” as well as, “[i]n the case of a money
judgment, the information necessary to compute the amount of
the judgment as renewed.” Id.
application for renewal fails to satisfy these requirements.
It is not executed under oath, and it does not include the
address of EDS. Cal. Code Civ. P. § 683.140(c). It also
fails to provide information necessary to compute the amount
of the judgment as renewed. Cal. Code Civ. P. §