Filing 22

ORDER denying 6 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 7 & 16 Motions for Decision; and granting 8 Motion for Extension to File Response to Motion to Dismiss. This case remains closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/29/2022. (thb)

Case 1:18-mc-00014-JRH Document 22 Filed 12/29/22 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.,

Plaintiff,

*
*

MC 118-014

V.

ANDREW CHIANG, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court are Donald Bowers' motion
to dismiss (Doc. 6), request for decision {Doc. 7), and second
request for decision (Doc. 16), as well as ClearOne Communication,
Inc.'s C'ClearOne") motion for extension of time to respond to the
motion to dismiss (Doc. 8).

For the following reasons, Bowers'

motions are DENIED and ClearOne's motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2018, ClearOne registered a foreign judgment
from the United States District Court for the District of Utah in

this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
filed

with

the

Court

included

the

(Doc. 1.)

District

of

The request

Utah's

Clerk

Certification of Judgment to be Registered in Another District and
a copy of the Judgment.

(Docs. 1-1, 1-2.) The original judgment

Case 1:18-mc-00014-JRH Document 22 Filed 12/29/22 Page 2 of 6

from the District of Utah was issued on December 8, 2011 for civil

contempt and entered in favor of ClearOne to be paid by Donald
Bowers, individually, for $22,743.88 and to be paid by Donald
Bowers,

Lonny

Massachusetts,
$184,506.52.

Bowers,
and

Jun

Dial

HD,

Yang,

WideBand

jointly

and

Solutions
severally,

of
for

(Doc. 1-2.)

Also on September 17, 2018, the Clerk of Court issued a Writ
of Execution against Bowers.

(Doc. 2.)

On November 27, 2018, the

United States Marshal filed a Nulla Bona Return certifying he
received the Writ of Execution and was unable to locate any goods
at that time.

(Doc. 3.)

Then, on December 7, 2020, two years

after the foreign judgment was registered and the Writ of Execution

was issued. Bowers filed the currently pending motion to dismiss

the registration and writ.

(Doc. 6.)

He argues the filing of the

foreign judgment is time barred pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20 and
due to ClearOne's failure to comply with the Uniform Enforcement
of Foreign Judgment Law ("UEFJL") and O.C.G.A. § 9-12-130.

(Id.

at 1.)

II. DISCUSSION

A judgment is registered in another district pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1963 and then is enforced by a writ of execution under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69.

28 U.S.C. § 1963 provides

that a judgment for the recovery of money entered in any district

Case 1:18-mc-00014-JRH Document 22 Filed 12/29/22 Page 3 of 6

court may be registered by filing a certified copy of the judgment
in any other district when the judgment has become final by appeal
or expiration of time for appeal or when ordered by the court that
entered the judgment for good cause shown.

28 U.S.C. § 1963.

Rule

69 provides the means of execution of the foreign judgment after
registration has occurred.
enforced

by

a

writ

of

It provides that a money judgment is

execution,

and

that

the

procedure

on

execution must accord with the procedure of the state where the
court is located.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a).

In this instance, since

the foreign judgment is registered in Georgia, Georgia law applies
to the execution of the judgment, not the registration of it.
Bowers argues in his motion to dismiss that the filing of the
foreign judgment is time barred pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20 and
ClearOne's failure to comply with the UEFJL and O.C.G.A. § 9-12130.

(Doc. 6, at 1.)

He argues ClearOne violated O.C.G.A. § 9-

12-130 because it did not follow the procedures of the UEFJL when

it filed the Utah judgment in Georgia.

(Id. at 3.)

Then, he

argues the foreign registration is time barred because it

was

registered more than five years after issuance of the judgment, in
violation of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-20.

(Id. at 4.)

Therefore, Bowers

requests the Court vacate the registration of the foreign judgment
and writ of execution and dismiss this case.

(Id. at 6.)

ClearOne filed a motion for leave to respond to the motion to

dismiss out of time because of inadvertently missing the response

Case 1:18-mc-00014-JRH Document 22 Filed 12/29/22 Page 4 of 6

deadline during the COVID-19 pandemic.
the motion.

(Doc. 10.)

(Doc. 8.)

Bowers opposes

Upon due consideration, ClearOne's motion

(Doc. 8) is GRANTED and the Court construes ClearOne's response

(Doc. 9) as timely filed in order to analyze the motion to dismiss

on the merits instead of due to a procedural mistake.
In response to Bowers' motion to dismiss, ClearOne argues
O.C.G.A.

§

9-12-130

does

not

apply

because

it

did

not

seek

domestication in Georgia of the Utah judgment, and O.C.G.A. § 9-

12-130 only applies when dealing with domestication of foreign
judgments.

(Id. at 2-3.)

Instead, ClearOne argues 28 U.S.C. §

1963 applies and was properly followed when registering the foreign
judgment

in

this

Court.

(Id.

at

3-5.)

ClearOne

argues

the

judgment is not time barred because 28 U.S.C. § 1963 provides no
time limit for registering the judgment.

(Id. at 5.)

Furthermore,

it argues that according to Guin v. Alarm Detection Indus., Inc.,
628 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006), the Utah judgment is not a

foreign judgment under UEFJL because pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963,
the Utah judgment is no longer foreign after being registered in

this

Court.

(Id. at 4-5.)

Finally,

in response

to Bowers'

argument that the registration of the judgment is also time barred
under Georgia law, ClearOne argues that pursuant to Corzo Trucking
Corp. V. West, 636 S.E.2d 39, 40 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006), Georgia law
has a ten-year statute of limitations for the enforcement of a
judgment therein so it is not time barred.

(Id. at 6.)

Case 1:18-mc-00014-JRH Document 22 Filed 12/29/22 Page 5 of 6

Bowers replied in support of his motion to dismiss, arguing
ClearOne did not follow the correct procedures or provide the right
notices when registering its foreign judgment.
4.)

{Doc. 12-1, at 1-

He also asserts that Guin and Corzo are inapplicable here

because they are
Further,

Bowers

misleading and
Georgia law.

not analogous to this case.
requests sanctions against

violating

Federal Rules

of

(Id. at 5-9.)

ClearOne for being
Civil Procedure

and

(Id. at 9-10.)

After reviewing the Parties' briefs and arguments, the Court
finds that Bowers'

motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1963, the Utah judgment was properly filed in this Court
by ClearOne back in 2018, and the Clerk of Court properly issued
a writ of execution upon registration of the foreign judgment.
(See Docs. 1, 2.)

Bowers' arguments about the registration being

out of time are without merit because 28 U.S.C. § 1963 provides no

time limit for registering a foreign judgment, aside from ensuring
it is after the
reliance

on

appeal period

various

Georgia

has run.

statues

is

Furthermore, Bowers'
misplaced

because,

as

explained above, the Georgia laws deal with the execution of the

writ; however, the registration of the foreign judgment itself
comes from 28 U.S.C. § 1963 and does not work in tandem with the

Georgia statutes in that capacity.
Once the Utah judgment was registered in this Court, it became

a new Georgia judgment.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1963 ("A judgment so

Case 1:18-mc-00014-JRH Document 22 Filed 12/29/22 Page 6 of 6

registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district
court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like
manner") -

Therefore, any time clock in Georgia did not start

ticking until registration of the foreign judgment took place on
September 17, 2018, and since that was only four years ago, none
of Bowers' cited time bars are triggered yet.

findings.

Bowers'

unavailing,
Furthermore,

and

arguments

his

since

motion

the

in
to

Court

his

motion

dismiss

has

now

Based on these

to

(Doc.

ruled

dismiss

6)

on

the

is

are

DENIED.

motion

to

dismiss. Bowers' requests for decision (Docs. 7, 16) are DENIED AS
MOOT.

III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Donald Bowers' motion

to dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED and his request for decision (Doc.
7), and second request for decision (Doc. 16), are DENIED AS MOOT.

ClearOne's motion for extension of time to respond to the motion
to dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED.

This case remains closed.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this g7< i

day of December,

2022 .

IDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA