Too Little, Too Late: Seventh Circuit Reaffirms the Limits of a Registration Proceeding Under 28 U.S.C. § 1963

07 July 2014 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

In Goldman v. Gagnard, No. 12-2706 (June 27, 2014), the Seventh Circuit (in an opinion authored by Judge Tinder) waded into a long-running, continent-spanning dispute, which it characterized as “Dickensian” in character, arising out of water leaks in a California house that was sold ten years and five judicial proceedings ago. The court’s ultimate holding was that the sellers had waited too long to raise an error that a California state court allegedly made almost three years ago, and had thereby waived any error. 

What’s important about the case, however, is that, in the course of reaching its conclusion, the court reminded us of its decision 14 years ago in Board of Trustees, Sheet Metal Workers’ Nat’l Pension Fund v. Elite Erectors, Inc., 212 F.3d 1031, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000), that when a federal judgment is registered in another district for collection, under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, the court in the receiving district may not modify the judgment but must enforce it as entered.

That rule rightly prevents what could be considerable confusion if multiple districts modified the judgment in potentially different ways. Any motion for relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), therefore, must be made in the rendering court.

The appellants (the Gagnards) attempted to use the appellee’s registration proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois as a means to raise a setoff issue that they previously had not litigated when a federal district court in California confirmed an arbitral award against them. The Seventh Circuit thought that the Gagnards had ample opportunity to litigate the issue in the California district court or, at least, in a related California state-court proceeding. The Northern District of Illinois was “a tribunal entrusted not with sifting through the substantive arguments, but simply with enforcing the judgment entered by the entities that invested significant resources and time in determining which parties owed what to whom.” Slip Op. 9. It thus “did not have jurisdiction to substantively ‘modify or annul’ the judgment of the California federal court.” Slip Op. 9-10.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights