Anderson v. Red Rocks LLC et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying Judgment Debtor Marcy M. Lindgren's 5 Motion to Dismiss. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RONALD L. ANDERSON,

Case No. 15-mc-80173-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING JUDGMENT
DEBTOR MARCY M. LINDGREN'S
MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
9
10

RED ROCKS LLC, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 5

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On November 6, 2012, Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Ronald L. Anderson obtained a

13

judgment in the amount of $2,900,730.57 against Judgment Debtors Red Rocks, LLC, J. Chris

14

Lindgren and Marcy M. Lindgren in the United States District Court, District of South Carolina.

15

(See Judgment, Dkt. No. 1.) On June 19, 2015, the judgment was registered in the United States

16

District Court for the Northern District of California. (Dkt. No. 1.) Thereafter, Judgment Creditor

17

caused a writ of execution to be issued on the Judgment. (Dkt. No. 4.)

18

On August 13, 2015, Judgment Debtor Marcy M. Lindgren filed a motion to dismiss for

19

lack of personal jurisdiction. (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 5.) A judgment creditor, however, may bring

20

an action to enforce a judgment in any district court. Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627

21

F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir.2010). Debtor concedes that she is an independent consultant for Rodan

22

+ Fields, LLC, a California entity. (Def.’s Mot. at 2.) Debtor contends, however, that she receives

23

her compensation through an independent third party entity located in Vancouver, Canada. Id.

24

In opposition, Judgment Creditor provides that he registered the judgment in this district,

25

because Debtor’s commissions originate here. (Pl.’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 7 at 4.) Debtor’s

26

unsupported claim that the third party payroll company precludes enforcement is unavailing, as

27

any garnishment would involve Rodan + Fields, LLC.

28

Moreover, a judgment debtor may only attack the judgment in the registering district if the

1

original district court did not have jurisdiction over the judgment debtor in those proceedings. See

2

Straitshot Commc'ns, Inc. v. Telekenex, Inc., 2012 WL 4105125, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012)

3

(citing Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, Debtor

4

states that jurisdiction was proper in South Carolina, where the case arose and where judgment

5

was entered. (Def.’s Mot. at 2-3.) Thus, both the judgment itself and the registration in the

6

Northern District of California are valid, rendering Debtor’s assets subject to enforcement

7

execution within this district.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter is suitable for resolution without oral
argument pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Debtor’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 29, 2015
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2