Knights Franchise Systems, Inc. v. Gauri Shivam LLC et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - In short, the court DENIES Poser's request to revive the judgment against Mr. Chauvin and until November 10, 2031, but GRANTS the request to revive the judgment against Gauri Shivam, LLC, and Shant Vashista, until July 18, 2031. Signed by Judge Annemarie Carney Axon on 4/8/2022. (KEK)

FILED
2022 Apr-08 AM 08:04
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KNIGHTS FRANCHSE SYSTEMS, INC. ]
]
Plaintiff,
]
]
v.
]
]
GAURI SHIVAM, LLC, et al.,
]
]
Defendants.
]

2:11-mc-03892-ACA

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Poser Investments, Inc. (“Poser”) has moved to revive the judgment
entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 18,
2011, and registered in this court on November 10, 2011, with respect to Defendants
Gauri Shivam, LLC, Shant Vashista, and Yuvi Chauhan. (Doc. 4). The court
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.
On July 18, 2011, a New Jersey district court entered judgment in favor of
Knights Franchise Systems, Inc., and against Gauri Shivam, Pradeep Vashisth,
Lakhwinder Sing, Surinder Channa, and Mr. Vashista, in the amount of $50,012.07,
and against Gauri Shivam in the amount of $85,366.71. (Doc. 1 at 2–4). Knights
Franchise Systems registered the judgment in this court on November 10, 2011. (Id.
at 1).

On February 22, 2022, Poser moved to substitute itself as the real party in
interest, and the court granted that motion. (Docs. 3, 7). Poser then moved to revive
the judgment as to Gauri Shivam, Mr. Vashista, and Mr. Chauvan. 1 (Doc. 4). Poser
attached an affidavit from its chief financial officer, attesting that as of January 21,
2022, the defendants had not paid any of the judgment. (Id. at 6–7 ¶ 4).
Alabama law controls the procedure “in proceedings supplementary to and in
aid of judgment or execution” of a judgment registered in Alabama. Fed. R. Civ. P.
69(a)(1); United States v. Fiorella, 869 F.2d 1425, 1426 (11th Cir. 1989). In
Alabama, “[a] judgment cannot be revived after the lapse of 20 years from its entry.”
Ala. Code § 6-9-190. “If 10 years have elapsed from the entry of the judgment
without issue of execution . . . , the judgment must be presumed satisfied, and the
burden of proving it not satisfied is upon the plaintiff.” Id. § 6-9-191. “No execution
shall issue on a judgment of the district or circuit court on which an execution has
not been sued out within 10 years of its entry until the same has been revived by
appropriate motion or action under the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id. § 69-192.
The judgment in this case was entered on July 18, 2011. (Doc. 1 at 2–4).
Poser did not move to revive the judgment until February 22, 2022, more than ten

1

The other defendants named in the judgment have received bankruptcy discharges, and
Poser does not seek the revive the judgment against them. (See doc. 4 at 7 ¶ 5).
2

years after the entry of the judgment. (Doc. 4). Accordingly, the court must presume
that the judgment has been satisfied. Ala. Code § 6-9-191.
However, Poser’s CFO executed an affidavit attesting that the judgment has
not been satisfied. (Doc. 4 at 6–7). This suffices under Alabama law to rebut the
presumption of satisfaction. See Gloor v. BancorpSouth Bank, 216 So. 3d 444, 447
(Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (holding that “evidence from the corporate president of a
judgment creditor that he was familiar with the books and records of the corporation
and knew that the judgment had not been paid in full . . . was sufficient proof of
nonpayment to overcome the presumption” that the judgment was satisfied). And
because twenty years have not passed since entry of the judgment, the court can
revive it. Cf. Ala. Code § 6-9-190.
However, the court cannot grant all the relief Poser seeks. First of all,
although Poser seeks to revive the judgment against Yuvi Chauvin (doc. 4 at 1),
Mr. Chauvin is not named in the judgment (doc. 1 at 2–4). Indeed, a review of the
New Jersey district court docket reveals that Knights Franchise Systems voluntarily
dismissed Mr. Chauvin before entry of the judgment. Knights Franchise Sys., Inc.
v. Gauri Shivam, LLC, no. 2:10-cv-5895-WJM-MF, Doc. 14 (D.N.J. May 13, 2011).
Accordingly, the court DENIES Poser’s motion to the extent it seeks to revive the
judgment against Mr. Chauvin.

3

Second, Poser seeks revival of the judgment “up to and through November
10, 2031,” which is twenty years from the registration of the judgment in this court.
(Doc. 4 at 3). But the Alabama statute permits revival of a judgment until “20 years
from its entry.” Ala. Code § 6-9-190. “Entry” means issuance of the judgment, not
registration of the judgment. See, e.g., McLendon v. Hepburn, 876 So. 2d 479, 480,
486 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (stating that a plaintiff had until April 22, 2001 to obtain
writs of garnishment to execute an April 22, 1981 judgment). The revival of the
judgment can last only until July 18, 2031.
In short, the court DENIES Poser’s request to revive the judgment against
Mr. Chauvin and until November 10, 2031, but GRANTS the request to revive the
judgment against Gauri Shivam, LLC, and Shant Vashista, until July 18, 2031.
DONE and ORDERED this April 8, 2022.

_________________________________
ANNEMARIE CARNEY AXON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4