United States of America by and for the use of Jersey Architectural Door & Supply, Inc. v. Aeroplate Corp. et al

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Directing Plaintiff to show cause, by no later than 11/16/2018, why its Motion to Amend Judgment and for Order that Judgment Lien Attach to Real Property (ECF No. 23 ) should not be denied for lack of jurisdiction. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/1/2018. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JERSEY ARCHITECTURAL DOOR &
SUPPLY, INC.,

Case No. 1:13-mc-00038-EPG

12
Plaintiff,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
SHOULD NOT BE DENIED FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION

13
v.
14
15

RONALD D. PATTERSON, and
AEROPLATE CORP.,

(ECF No. 23)

16
Defendants.
17
18
19

This judgment enforcement proceeding was initiated by Plaintiff, Jersey Architectural

20

Door & Supply, Inc., on July 29, 2013, with the registering of a foreign judgment obtained by

21

Plaintiff against Defendants, Ronald Patterson and Aeroplate Corp., in the U.S. District Court

22

for the Eastern District of Philadelphia. (ECF No. 1.) On October 31, 2018, Plaintiff filed a

23

motion to amend that foreign judgment to add additional judgment debtors not named in the

24

foreign judgment, which Plaintiff claims are alter-egos of Defendants (ECF No. 23).

25

It appears that the Court does not have jurisdiction to amend the judgment as requested by

26

Plaintiff. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356-59 (1996) (supplementary proceedings “for

27

the exercise of a federal court’s inherent power to enforce its judgments” does “not extend

28

beyond attempts to execute, or to guarantee eventual executability of, a federal judgment,” and

1

1

does not authorize “the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction in a subsequent lawsuit to impose an

2

obligation to pay an existing federal judgment on a person not already liable for that judgment”);

3

H.C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497 (1910) (rejecting attempt to make defendants

4

answerable for a judgment already obtained that did not name, and was not against, those

5

defendants). Accordingly, the Court raises the issue of jurisdiction sua sponte and will require

6

Plaintiff to show cause why its motion should not be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

7

IT IS ORDERED that, no later than November 16, 2018, Plaintiff shall show cause why

8

its Motion to Amend Judgment and for Order that Judgment Lien Attach to Real Property (ECF

9

No. 23) should not be denied for lack of jurisdiction.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 1, 2018

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2