Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C. v. Najafi et al

Filing 152

Order DENYING 147 motion to expunge judgment and liens. The hearing set for September 8, 2022, is VACATED. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on September 2, 2022. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

INJAZAT TECHNOLOGY FUND B.S.C.,

9

v.

10

HAMID NAJAFI,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
EXPUNGE JUDGMENT AND LIENS
Re: Dkt. No. 147

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 11-cv-04133-PJH

Plaintiff,

8

12
13
14

Before the court is a motion seeking expungement of judgment and liens by

15

defendant and judgment debtor Hamid Najafi. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for

16

decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for September 8, 2022, is

17

VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments

18

and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as

19

follows.

20
21

BACKGROUND
This case was initiated by Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C. (“Injazat”) to confirm an

22

international arbitration award against Najafi and another business executive. Dkt. 1.

23

The court granted Injazat’s petition to confirm the arbitration award and entered final

24

judgment in favor of Injazat against Najafi in the amount of $3,426,552.45 on May 4,

25

2012. Dkt. 62, 65. The judgment was ordered to be enforceable against Najafi’s real

26

property located at 26645 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022, and 6509

27

Lakeville Highway, Petaluma, California 94954. Id.

28

Injazat proceeded to seek enforcement of the judgment through proceedings

1

heard by Magistrate Judge Cousins. See, e.g., Dkt. 137. This action has been dormant

2

since 2013. See Dkt. 144. Najafi now asks the court to expunge the judgment and liens

3

on the basis that they are no longer enforceable—Injazat’s 10-year period in which to

4

enforce the judgment under California law has expired, and no effort was made to renew

5

or extend the judgment.
DISCUSSION

6
7
8

actions he seeks are warranted or proper. Najafi contends that the judgment lien on his

9

two properties should be extinguished because the period for enforcement has expired

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Injazat has not filed an opposition, but Najafi fails to persuade the court that the

and Injazat has not renewed the judgment. Dkt. 147 at 4-5.

11

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1), procedures “in proceedings

12

supplementary to and in aid of judgment . . . must accord with the procedure of the state

13

where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 69(a)(1); see also In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that

15

Rule 69(a) “permits judgment creditors to use any execution method consistent with the

16

practice and procedure of the state in which the district court sits.”). Since there is no

17

applicable federal statute governing the time period for enforceability of judgments, the

18

court relies on California law. See In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights

19

Litig., 536 F.3d 980, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts look “to the law of the registration forum

20

for its statute of limitations on enforcement of judgments.”).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The relevant California statute that governs the period of enforceability for
judgments provides:
Except as otherwise provided by statute, upon the expiration of
10 years after the date of entry of a money judgment or a
judgment for possession or sale of property:
(a) The judgment may not be enforced.
(b) All enforcement procedures pursuant to the judgment or to
a writ or order issued pursuant to the judgment shall cease.
(c) Any lien created by an enforcement procedure pursuant to
the judgment is extinguished.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 683.020; see also Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 683.180 (providing
2

1

procedures concerning the application for renewals), 697.310 (creation and duration of

2

liens generally). However, “Section 683.020 does not require a court to vacate a

3

judgment after the ten-year period runs. Rather, the statute simply provides that the

4

judgment ‘may not be enforced.’” In re Copeland, No. AP 07-01071-RN, 2016 WL

5

423798, at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016), aff’d, No. 2:05-BK-11844-ER, 2017 WL

6

2843305 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 3, 2017) (citation omitted). The statute does not provide a

7

mechanism to vacate an expired judgment, and courts do not err where they refuse to

8

vacate an expired judgment. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V v. KXD Tech., Inc., No. CV

9

07-6117 AHS, 2020 WL 5092447, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2020).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Here, Najafi fails to cite authorities that would support the relief requested in the

11

motion. He offers no case, and the court has found none, where a court has expunged or

12

vacated a judgment in the way he proposes. Rather, courts facing similar motions have

13

denied them, noting their lack of authority to extinguish judgment liens at the request of a

14

judgment debtor where no party sought enforcement and based solely on the judgment

15

debtor’s representation that the period for enforcement under section 683.020 had

16

expired. See, e.g., Koninklijke Philips, 2020 WL 5092447, at *3.

17

Further, although Najafi frames his request as a request for the court to find that

18

the judgment liens against his property are extinguished, the practical effect of his

19

request is similar to the one rejected in Koninklijke Philips. Najafi’s reliance on section

20

683.020’s prohibition of enforcement of a judgment after the 10-year period does not alter

21

the analysis because the statute does not create a mechanism for a court to find a

22

judgment lien is extinguished absent an enforcement action. Thus, even if the limitations

23

period of section 683.020 has run, the statute does not authorize the court to declare that

24

the judgment lien is extinguished absent an enforcement action. Therefore, Najafi’s

25

motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION

26
27
28

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Najafi’s motion to expunge judgment
and liens.
3

1
2
3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 2, 2022
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4