Hardin v. Dadlani et al

Filing 16

ORDER denying Dadlani's 5 Motion to Quash Writ of Garnishment and for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS) Modified on 2/7/2017/cc National Securities Corporation (RS).

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

BRIGGITTA HARDIN,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

ORDER

MICK DADLANI,
Defendant,

11
v.

12
13

Case No. C16-1579 RAJ

NATIONAL SECURITIES
CORPORATION,

14

Garnishee.

15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mick Dadlani’s Motion to

18

Quash Writ of Garnishment and for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs. Dkt. # 5. For the

19

reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Dadlani’s motion.

20

II. BACKGROUND

21

On January 29, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

22

entered a $687,000 judgment in favor of Plaintiff Briggitta Hardin, $676,000 of which

23

was against Dadlani. Hardin v. Dadlani, C11-2052-RBW, Dkt. # 176 (D.C. Jan. 29,

24

2016).

25

On May 16, 2016, Hardin registered the judgment in this Court as a foreign

26

judgment to be enforced against Dadlani. Hardin v. Dadlani, C16-mc-66, Dkt. # 1 (W.D.

27

Wash. May 16, 2016).

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

On July 22, 2016, Hardin filed an application for writ of garnishment to impose a
lien on Dadlani’s earnings from National Securities Corporation, an entity located in
Seattle. Dkt. # 1. The Court granted Hardin’s request and entered an order garnishing
Dadlani’s earnings in the amount of $676,046.1 Dkt. ## 2-3.
Dadlani now moves to quash the writ of garnishment on the basis that Hardin did
not follow the proper procedure for filing a foreign judgment in this Court. Dkt. # 5.
Hardin opposes the motion. Dkt. # 13.
III. DISCUSSION

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Dadlani contends that the writ of garnishment must be quashed because Hardin
failed to register the foreign judgment in accordance with Washington’s Uniform
Enforcement of Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), RCW 6.36.010, et seq. Under the UEFJA, a
plaintiff registering a foreign judgment must comply with certain procedural
requirements, which include (1) submitting an affidavit that contains identifying
information about the judgment debtor and (2) notifying the judgment debtor by mail that
the foreign judgment was filed. RCW 6.36.035.
But these state registration requirements are not required in federal court when a
plaintiff complies with the separate registration process set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
The federal registration statute provides, in relevant part:

24

A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in
any . . . district 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 the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that
entered the judgment for good cause shown. Such a judgment entered in
favor of the United States may be so registered any time after judgment is
entered. A judgment so 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. . . . The procedure prescribed under this section is in addition
to other procedures provided by law for the enforcement of judgments.

25

28 U.S.C. § 1963. Dadlani emphasizes the last sentence to contend that this statute

19
20
21
22
23

26
1

27
28

The additional $46 consists of the estimated filing and ex parte fees associated with
applying for the writ.

ORDER – 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

necessarily exists in tandem with state laws governing the registration of foreign
judgments. That sentence, however, applies to procedures for enforcement, not
registration.
Once a judgment is registered in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1963, it is enforced
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69. Rule 69(a)(1) provides:
A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court
directs otherwise. The procedure on execution—and in proceedings
supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution—must accord with
the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute
governs to the extent it applies.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. “The necessary predicate for application of Federal Rule 69 is a

10

judgment in the federal district court in which execution is sought.” Labertew v.

11

Langemeier, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-15879, 2017 WL 242558, at *4 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2017).

12

“Garnishments from other courts are ordinarily turned into judgments of a new court by

13

separate actions for . . . registration. . . .” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1963).

14

Thus, it is only after a judgment has been properly registered under § 1963 and the

15

enforcement process under Rule 69 has commenced that state law comes into play. See

16

In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litig., 536 F.3d 980, 989 (9th Cir.

17

2008) (“[R]egistering a judgment under § 1963 is the functional equivalent of obtaining a

18

new judgment of the registration court. The effect is to allow that judgment, i.e., the

19

newly registered judgment, to be enforced for the period allowed by the law of that

20

forum, i.e., the state of registration. . . .”) (emphasis in original).

21

The distinction between enforcement and registration is evident from the cases

22

upon which Dadlani relies. For instance, he cites Caruso v. Perlow, 440 F. Supp. 2d 117,

23

119 (D. Conn. 2006), which states: “The judgment of a federal court may be registered in

24

another federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, and enforced according to the laws of

25

the state in which the judgment is registered, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26

69.” Caruso v. Perlow, 440 F. Supp. 2d 117, 119 (D. Conn. 2006) (emphasis added).

27
28

ORDER – 3

1
2

This case, as well as the others he cites,2 demonstrate that state law applies only to the
enforcement process—it does not apply to the registration process.
Each of the state law provisions that Dadlani relies upon applies to the registration

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

process. First, he argues that Hardin should have filed an affidavit including certain
information about his last known whereabouts. But such affidavits are required “[a]t the
time of the filing of the foreign judgment . . . .” RCW 6.36.035(1). Second, he argues
that Hardin should have mailed notice to him and that her failure to file proof of having
done so precludes her from applying for a writ of garnishment. But the applicable state
provisions show that these are pre-enforcement registration requirements. Mailing is
required “[p]romptly upon the filing of the foreign judgment and the affidavit . . . .”
RCW 6.36.035(2). That mailing is a pre-enforcement requirement is further evident from
the fact that failure to follow it precludes enforcement: “No execution or other process for
enforcement of a foreign judgment filed in the office of the clerk of a superior court shall
be allowed until ten days after the proof of mailing has been filed with the clerk by the
judgment creditor.” RCW 6.36.035(3)(a); see also RCW 6.36.035(3)(b). Because the
state law provisions upon which Dadlani relies are registration requirements, Hardin was
not required to abide them when she properly registered the foreign judgment in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Accordingly, Dadlani’s motion is denied.
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
2

United States v. Palmer, 609 F. Supp. 544, 548 (E.D. Tenn. 1985) (“[U]nder § 1963, the
law of the state in which the court of registration sits controls the proceedings. Thus, a District
of Columbia judgment registered in Maryland would be executed according to Maryland law.”)
(emphasis added); In re Smith, No. 07-80005, 2011 WL 722401, at *2 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Feb.
18, 2011) (“[r]ecognizing that enforcement of a federal judgment depends to a large extent on
state procedures”) (emphasis added).

ORDER – 4

IV. CONCLUSION

1
2
3

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Dadlani’s Motion to Quash Writ
of Garnishment and for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs. Dkt. # 5.

4
5

DATED this 7th day of February, 2017.

A

6
7

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 5