American Income Life Insurance Company v. Ailport

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY CLERK OF COURT [DKT. NO. 4 ] AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 7/31/2020. (wrr)

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AMERICAN INCOME LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY
Petitioner,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18MC48
(Judge Keeley)

NICHOLAS L. AILPORT
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT [DKT. NO. 4] AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
Pending before the Court is a motion for writ of execution to
be entered by the Clerk of Court to enforce a judgment of a state
court in McLennan County, Texas (Dkt. No. 4). For the reasons that
follow, the Court DENIES the motion and DISMISSES the case WITH
PREJUDICE.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from an order entered by the District Court
for McLennan County, Texas, a state court, confirming an agreed
arbitration award and permanent injunction against Nicholas L.
Ailport (“the Texas Order”) (Dkt. No. 1). On September 18, 2018,
American

Income

Life

Insurance

Company

(“American

Income”),

apparently in an effort to obtain the appearance of a federal
judgment certification, filed a clerk’s certification of the Texas
Order with this Court, using the Administrative Office of the

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 18

AMERICAN INCOME V. AILPORT

1:18MC48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 4]
United States Courts Form 451 for the certification of a federal
judgment in another federal district court. In filling out the
form, the state court clerk simply entered “McLennan County, Texas”
in the space designated for the particular United States District
Court on the form (Dkt. No. 1 at 1). Yet it is beyond debate that
there is no federal judicial entity known as the United States
District Court for McLennan County, Texas.
Subsequently, on June 6, 2019, American Income moved this
Court to direct the Clerk to enter a writ of execution relating to
collection of the monetary award in the Texas Order. It further
requested that the writ of execution be served by the United States
Marshals Service (Dkt. No. 4).
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and possess
“only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). Generally, subject-matter jurisdiction in
federal courts must be based on either diversity jurisdiction or
federal-question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
Federal courts also have jurisdiction to register a judgment
under 28 U.S.C. § 1963. That enabling statute provides that a
2

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 19

AMERICAN INCOME V. AILPORT

1:18MC48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 4]
judgment in an action for “the recovery of money or property
entered in any court of appeals, district court, bankruptcy court,
or in the Court of International Trade” may be registered in any
other district when the judgment is final. Id. Notably, this
statutory proviso does not specifically authorize registry of
state-court judgments.
Although

the

Fourth

Circuit

Court

of

Appeals

has

not

previously decided whether a federal court can register a state
court judgment, it has addressed whether § 1963 applies to the
registration of a federal court judgment in a state court. In
Martin-Trigona v. Joel P. Bennett, P.C., Nos. 88-1800, 69-1402,
1989 WL 64126, at *2 (4th Cir. June 12, 1989), our circuit court
held that 28 U.S.C. § 1963 has no application to the recording of
a

federal

court’s

judgment

in

a

state

court

because

§

1963

“addresses the registration of federal judgments in other federal
courts.”
Beyond the Fourth Circuit, the federal courts that have
directly addressed whether state-court judgments may be registered
in federal court are in agreement that they may not. In Atkinson v.
Kestell, 954 F. Supp. 14, 15 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1997), for example, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
3

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 20

AMERICAN INCOME V. AILPORT

1:18MC48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 4]
flatly stated that “[s]tate court judgments cannot be registered in
this Court.” The Sixth Circuit is in accord, stating, “[n]othing in
the language of [§] 1963 grants authority to a district court to
register judgments of any courts other than other district courts
or the Court of International Trade.” Fox Painting Co. V. National
Labor Relations Bd., 16 F.3d 115, 117 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding that
§ 1963 does not authorize a district court to register a state
court of appeals judgment). See also Euro-American Coal Trading,
Inc. V. James Taylor Mining, Inc., 431 F.Supp.2d 705, 708 (E.D. Ky.
2006) (holding that “the registration procedures of [§ 1963]
contain jurisdictional limitations that prohibit federal courts
from registering state court judgments”); W.S. Frey Co., Inc. V.
Precipitation Associates of America, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 1527, 1528
(W.D. Va. 1995) (holding that § 1963 is for “judgments from other
courts of the United States” and explaining that although federal
courts are required to give state court judgments “full faith and
credit,” this “is a far cry from making a judgment of a state court
a federal judgment, which is what registration is all about”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 states that “a money
judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court
directs otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. According to Labertew v.
4

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 21

AMERICAN INCOME V. AILPORT

1:18MC48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 4]
Langemeier, 846 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. 2017), “Rule 69 is not
available to enforce state court judgments in federal court.” See
also United States v. Potter, 19 F.R.D. 89, 89 (S.D.N.Y. 1956)
(“Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [ ] is not to
be construed as applying to judgments other than those of the
Federal Court”); Kirtz v. Wiggin, 538 F. Supp. 1218, 1221 (E.D.Mo.
1982) (dismissing a complaint after finding that, after a state
court had handled the matter, “all that needs to be done is to
execute upon that judgment” and “this Court will not be used as a
forum to execute on a state judgment”); 12 Charles Alan Wright &
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3011 (3d ed.
2020) (“Rule 69 has no application to state-court judgments”).
Finally, no writ of execution may be entered before the
judgment is registered. 9 Federal Procedural Forms § 28:5 (2020).
And again, the authority of federal courts to issue extraordinary
writs exists “solely for the purpose of protecting the respective
jurisdictions of [federal] courts.” Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg Cty., 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969).
III. DISCUSSION
American Income seeks to register the Texas Order and obtain
entry of a writ of execution on a monetary judgment awarded in its
5

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 22

AMERICAN INCOME V. AILPORT

1:18MC48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 4]
favor by a Texas state court. As the Fourth Circuit has recognized,
registration is much more than a mere “ministerial act.” Wells
Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 941 F.3d 237, 244-45
(4th Cir. 2016). When registering a judgment in federal court under
§ 1963, the judgment becomes a new judgment in the district court
where the judgment is registered, as if this new judgment had
actually been entered in the district. Id. Were American Income
permitted to register the Texas Order in this Court, that order
would

transform

a

state-court

judgment

into

a

federal-court

judgment. That plainly cannot be. Registration of judgments in
federal court pursuant to § 1963 is reserved solely for other
federal court judgments, not state-court judgments. W.S. Frey Co.,
Inc., 899 F. Supp. at 1528; Martin-Trigona, 1989 WL 64126 at *2.
Nor is Rule 69(a) a vehicle through which federal courts can
enforce state-court judgments, which is exactly what American
Income is attempting to accomplish.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having no jurisdiction to register the state-court judgment at
issue, the Court DENIES American Income’s motion to direct the
Clerk to enter a writ of execution (Dkt. No. 4), DISMISSES the case
WITH PREJUDICE, and DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit copies of this
6

Case 1:18-mc-00048-IMK Document 5 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 23

AMERICAN INCOME V. AILPORT

1:18MC48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION TO BE ENTERED BY
CLERK OF COURT AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 4]
Order to counsel by electronic means and to remove this case from
the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
DATED: July 31, 2020.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7