Chavez, et al v. Carranza
Filing
248
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RENEW JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 03-2932. (McCalla, Jon)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
ANA PATRICIA CHAVEZ, CECILIA
SANTOS, JOSE FRANCISCO
CALDERON, ERLINDA FRANCO, and
DANIEL ALVARADO,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NICOLAS CARRANZA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:03-cv-02932-JPM-tmp
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RENEW JUDGMENT
On December 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Renew
Judgment or, Alternatively, for Order to Show Cause.
240.)
(ECF No.
On December 7, 2015, the Court issued an order that, in
accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69.04, denied
Plaintiffs’ request to renew judgment, granted Plaintiffs’
request for an order to show cause, and ordered Defendant to
show cause why the judgment should not be renewed.
242.)
(ECF No.
Defendant responded to the order to show cause on January
25, 2016.
(ECF No. 246.)
The Court now considers whether
judgment should be renewed.
I.
BACKGROUND
This action commenced with the filing of a Complaint on
December 10, 2003.
(ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiffs Ana Patricia
Chavez, Cecilia Santos, Jose Francisco Calderon, Erlinda Franco,
and Daniel Alvarado filed their First Amended Complaint on July
29, 2004.
(ECF No. 27.)
On September 30, 2004, the Court
denied Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss, finding, inter alia, that
the statute of limitations was equitably tolled.
(ECF No. 28.)
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on June 20,
2005.
(ECF No. 31.)
On October 18, 2005, the Court denied
Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and in
Addition Thereto or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment.
(ECF No. 97.)
On October 26, 2005, the Court granted
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Santos, Calderon,
Franco, 1 and Alvarado’s claims and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Summary Judgment as to Chavez’s claims.
(ECF No. 108.)
The Court held a jury trial over the course of fourteen
days beginning on October 31, 2005.
(Min. Entries, ECF Nos.
125-129, 131-133, 136-138, 140, 143, 148.)
On November 18,
2005, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Santos, Calderon,
Franco, and Alvarado in the amount of $500,000.00 each in
compensatory damages and $1,000,000.00 each in punitive damages.
(Min Entry, ECF No. 148; ECF Nos. 149-150, 152-153.)
The jury
was unable to reach a verdict as to Plaintiff Chavez’s claims.
1
The Court’s order on summary judgment identifies Erlinda Franco as
Erlinda Revelo. (ECF No. 108 at 7-8.) The docket, however, repeatedly uses
the last name “Franco” in reference to this Plaintiff and the jury verdict
refers her to Erlinda Franco. (See ECF Nos. 148, 152.) The Court therefore
refers to this Plaintiff as Erlinda Franco for the sake of consistency.
2
(Min. Entry, ECF No. 148; ECF No. 151.)
On January 17, 2006,
the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Chavez’s claims.
(ECF No. 164.)
On January 18, 2006, following the jury trial and
stipulation of dismissal, the Court entered a Judgment in favor
of Plaintiffs Santos, Calderon, Franco, and Alvarado, awarding
these Plaintiffs the collective amount of $6,000,000.00.
No. 165.)
(ECF
The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict, New Trial, and/or Remittitur on
August 15, 2006.
(ECF No. 181.)
On April 17, 2007, the Clerk
of Court awarded Plaintiffs an additional $51,034.27 in costs.
(ECF No. 220.)
Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal on September 15, 2006.
(ECF No. 186.)
On March 17, 2009, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s
judgment.
Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2009).
The Supreme Court of the United States denied Defendant’s
petition for a writ of certiorari on October 5, 2009.
Carranza
v. Chavez, 558 U.S. 822 (2009).
On December 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Renew
Judgment or, Alternatively, for Order to Show Cause.
240.)
(ECF No.
Plaintiffs assert that “[d]espite Plaintiffs’ sustained
and diligent efforts to execute on the Judgment, only $441.03
has been collected to date from Defendant.”
3
(Id. at 1.)
On
December 7, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered Defendant to show cause why the
judgment should not be renewed.
(ECF No. 242.)
Defendant
responded to the Court’s order to show cause on January 25,
2016.
II.
(ECF No. 246.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Because “there is no specific federal statute of
limitations on how long [a federal] judgment is effective,”
courts look to state law.
In re Hunt, 323 B.R. 665, 666-67
(Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2005); Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a).
judgments expire after ten years.
110(a)(2).
In Tennessee,
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-3-
Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 69.04,
however,
[w]ithin ten years from entry of a judgment, the
judgment creditor whose judgment remains unsatisfied
may move the court for an order requiring the judgment
debtor to show cause why the judgment should not be
extended for an additional ten years. A copy of the
order shall be mailed by the judgment creditor to the
last known address of the judgment debtor. If
sufficient cause is not shown within thirty days of
mailing, another order shall be entered extending the
judgment for an additional ten years. The same
procedure can be repeated within any additional tenyear period until the judgment is satisfied.
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 69.04. 2
2
On December 29, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted an amendment
to Rule 69.04, subject to approval by resolutions of the General Assembly, to
“eliminate[] the prior procedure of issuance of a show cause order by the
court.” Tennessee Court Order 15-0029. The amended rule is not effective
until July 1, 2016.
4
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs filed the instant motion within ten years of the
entry of judgment in this matter.
The burden is therefore on
Defendant to show sufficient cause why the judgment should not
be extended for an additional ten years.
69.04.
See Tenn. R. Civ. P.
Defendant argues that that there is sufficient cause to
deny Plaintiffs’ motion for renewed judgment because “El
Salvador does not renew or perpetuate judgments; now more than
thirty (30) years have passed since the last alleged wrongful
act committed in El Salvador; and, in spite of ‘Plaintiffs’
sustained and diligent efforts to execute on the Judgment’, only
$441.03 has been collected during the past ten years.”
246 at 6.)
(ECF No.
Defendant argues that Tennessee law and the laws of
El Salvador are in conflict as to the ability to renew a
judgment and, therefore, comity applies.
(Id. at 6-7.)
Additionally, Defendant asserts “that Plaintiffs’ decision to
bring this lawsuit in Tennessee, instead of El Salvador,
exemplifies transnational ‘forum shopping.’”
(Id. at 7.)
The
Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s arguments.
A.
Consideration of El Salvador Law on Renewed Judgments
The Sixth Circuit explained international comity on the
direct appeal in the underlying action:
International comity is “the recognition which
one nation allows within its territory to the
legislative, executive or judicial acts of another
5
nation, having due regard both to international duty
and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens
or other persons who are under the protection of its
laws.” In order for an issue of comity to arise,
there must be an actual conflict between the domestic
and foreign law. There is no conflict for comity
purposes “where a person subject to regulation by two
states can comply with the laws of both.”
Chavez v. Carranza, 559 F.3d 486, 495 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted).
Additionally, where a foreign law does not have “a
clear indication that it was intended to apply outside the
country enacting it,” there is no conflict between domestic and
foreign law.
Id. (citing BMW Stores, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of
Am., Inc., 860 F.2d 212, 215 n.1 (6th Cir. 1988)).
Like the Salvadoran Amnesty Law at issue in the underlying
proceedings, there is nothing in the Salvadoran “Statute of
Limitations for Enforcement” to suggest that it was intended to
apply extraterritorially.
to a judicial system.
Statutes of limitations are specific
In developing statutes of limitation and
rules regarding renewal of judgments, each judiciary may weigh
for itself the interests of fairness to defendants and an
opportunity for plaintiffs to seek relief.
Thus, the time
period for enforcement in El Salvador is not binding on this
Court.
Accordingly, the Court places no weight on El Salvador’s
two-year period for enforcement of final judgments, or on either
of the other statutes submitted by Defendant. 3
3
The Court further rejects Defendant’s contention that Plaintiffs
should be penalized for “forum shopping.” In its Order issued on September
6
B.
Length of Time Since Acts Were Committed
The Court also finds that the length of time since the acts
underlying this case were committed has no bearing on whether
judgment should be renewed.
The Court rejected Defendant’s
argument that the ten-year statute of limitations should not be
equitably tolled in its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss (ECF No. 28) and its Order Denying Defendant’s Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 97).
After carefully
considering the facts of this case and the applicable case law,
the Court found that the statute of limitations should be
equitably tolled because extraordinary circumstances outside
Plaintiffs’ control made it impossible for Plaintiffs to timely
assert their claims.
(ECF No. 28 at 8.)
Now, Defendant again argues that he should be released from
liability because the events at issue occurred in the remote
past.
Defendant does not, however, cite to any cases in support
of this contention.
Thirty years have passed since these events
occurred because Plaintiffs reasonably feared reprisal against
themselves or their family members in El Salvador until at least
March 1994, when the first national elections occurred after the
end of the civil war.
(See ECF No. 28 at 8-9.)
This is
30, 2004, the Court noted that “Defendant has offered nothing to show that
remedies are available to Plaintiffs in El Salvador.” (ECF No. 28 at 10.)
Plaintiffs filed this action in the United States, rather than in El
Salvador, because El Salvadoran amnesty law precluded them from seeking
relief in El Salvador courts.
7
precisely why the Court found that the statute of limitations
should be equitably tolled.
It would be contrary to the purpose
of equitable tolling to discharge Defendant’s liability on this
basis.
C.
Plaintiffs’ Inability to Execute on the Judgment
Plaintiffs’ inability to fully collect on the judgment is
also not an appropriate basis to avoid renewal of the judgment.
To the contrary, it is the reason why Tennessee law provides for
renewal of the judgment.
A plaintiff may move for renewed
judgment only if the judgment has not been satisfied.
Additionally, although Plaintiffs have recovered only $441.03
over the last decade, it is not for lack of trying.
Plaintiffs
have applied for writs of execution on three occasions.
ECF No. 194, 207 (sealed), 233.)
(See
While, these attempts have
apparently been unsuccessful, the Court rejects the notion that
Defendant is entitled to benefit from his failure to pay the
judgment over the course of the last ten years.
Without a
showing of sufficient cause, Plaintiffs are entitled to continue
their attempts to collect over the next decade.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Defendant
has not shown sufficient cause why the judgment should not be
renewed.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Renewed Judgment is GRANTED.
8
The Judgment in this action is hereby renewed for an additional
ten years until January 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of February, 2016.
/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?