Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman, No. 17-15913 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
In order to facilitate the enforcement of federal judgments, 28 U.S.C. 1963 provides that a judgment entered in a federal court may be registered in any other federal district by "filing a certified copy of the judgment" in that district.
The Ninth Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtors in the district of registration is not required for such registration of a judgment, because neither section 1963 nor due process imposes such a personal jurisdiction requirement. The panel also held that once a federal court of competent jurisdiction has determined the parties' substantive rights and entered a judgment following a proceeding that comports with due process, that federal judgment should be enforceable in any other federal district by way of the federal judgment registration statute. In this case, the Washington Judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction, and the district court erred by vacating the Second Arizona Judgment on that basis. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court's order and judgment in this case, remanding for further proceedings.
Court Description: Registration of Judgments. The panel reversed the district court’s order vacating a registered judgment and remanded. Plaintiffs obtained a civil fraud judgment in California federal court and registered this California judgment in the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Plaintiffs later attempted to renew the Arizona judgment, but the district court ruled that the renewal or re-registration was void as untimely. Plaintiffs next registered the California judgment in Washington federal court and then registered the newly-obtained Washington judgment in the District of Arizona. The district court granted defendants’ motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to vacate the newly-registered second Arizona judgment as void. In a prior appeal, the court of appeals reversed, holding that registering the California judgment in Washington created a “new” Washington judgment that could be re-registered in another state under * The Honorable Robert N. Chatigny, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation. FIDELITY NAT’L FIN. V. FRIEDMAN 3 § 1963. On remand, the district court again granted relief under Rule 60(b) on the ground that the Washington judgment was void because the Western District of Washington lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants at the time of registration. The panel reversed, holding that a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor in order to “merely register” a previously obtained judgment pursuant to § 1963. The panel held that § 1963 itself does not require that the court have personal jurisdiction. Further, the Due Process Clause does not require that a court in which a judgment creditor registers a pre-existing federal judgment have personal jurisdiction over judgment debtors at the time of registration. The panel held that once a federal court of competent jurisdiction has determined the parties’ substantive rights and entered a judgment following a proceeding that comports with due process, that federal judgment should be enforceable in any other federal district by way of the federal judgment registration statute.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.