good morning your honors please the court my name is thomas case i represent appellants fidelity national financial and fidelity express network i'd like to reserve five minutes for  in this case after fidelity obtained a california federal judgment it registered that judgment under twenty eight u s c section one thousand nine hundred sixty three in the state of washington and then reregistered the washington judgment in the state of arizona in the previous appeal in this case the court held that successive registration was proper the question in this case is why is it not necessary for the state of washington to have personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtors to register that judgment in washington well first it's the plain terms of the statute section one thousand nine hundred sixty three it simply states quote 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 then it goes on to say quote a judgment so registered shall have the same effect as the judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner would you who you cornered something right yes that's easier and more efficient for judgment creditors to collect their judgments every single court to reach the issue now before this court either under section one thousand nine hundred sixty three or similar statutes has relied on that policy to promote the efficient collection of judgments to hold the personal jurisdiction is not necessary in the registering state when you're registering a judgement so does that apply i mean i'm trying to figure i'll maybe you're answering now why can parties register judgments in states where they would not be able to force those judgments because personal jurisdiction is lacking yes the reason is s sixty three was purposely enacted by congress to make it easier for you to be ready to enforce the judgment when an f property ended up in that state that's the holdings of many of the cases that that we've cited  so the plain language of the statute doesn't require registration the policies underlying the statute would would disfavor requiring personal jurists jurisdiction the only question remains is does the constitution require personal jurisdiction and the answer to that is no because registering judgements in other districts the only thing it does is expand the number of districts in which you might be able to enforce the judgment this is a procedural issue in other words it doesn't affect the substantive rights of the judgment or well why was the first why did this work the first time around don't follow the procedures exactly the reduction is not renewed and at last you had an opportunity there was a period of time there yes what happened we blew it the the papers that were filed with the court's previous decision on appeal in this case we something implied from the earlier appeal yes the district court's interpretation was as follows if the new washington judgment was a new judgment in that it could be registered in arizona or reregistered in this case that must mean that it could be enforced in washington therefore the district court said that the ninth circuit in the previous appeal h distinction between registration and enforcement and since personal jurisdiction would be required for foresman therefore the district court reasoned personal jurisdiction must be required for registration because in the district court's view the ninth circuit had a race the distinction between enforcement and registration the flaw in that argument is that no one has ever tried to enforce this judgment in washington and neither this washington it's all with the subterfuge it's the only way to get back in there on yes i wouldn't call the subterfuge i mean the previous panel decided that that was a proper and as attorneys it's our job to sometimes find a work around if for example the statue of limitations had run on our tort claim well then we'll look for a contract claim that had a longer statute of limitations so i don't think of it as a subterfuge and neither did the court last time around in this appeal it was simply a work around and it's our job as attorneys to to do what's necessary to try to collect these judgments and use the law as written and the law as written allowed us to register this california judgment in washington and then reregister it in arizona and there's actually nothing either in the statute in the policies underlying the statute or the constitutional rights of due process that require the state of washington to have personal jurisdiction or any contacts really with the judgment debtors to simply register the judgment there the district court's opinion that this court had erased the distinction between enforcement and registration is simply a mis interpretation of the case that issue was never reached in fact the court expressly remain ended the case to the district court to address the jurisdictional issue because it didn't reach that issue so for the district court to say that this court has erased the distinction between registration and enforcement is simply a misinterpretation of that case that it never reached that issue that that's why we're here today  washington high washington washington has a long enough statute of limitations for registering out of state judgment so it was an available state there's other states that we could have used but that's the reason we use washington and in other words any state for which there was still time left to register an out of state judgment would have done just as well and would have been just as proper again the registration of a judgment simply expands the venues in which the judgment can be enforced that's not changing the substantive nature of the underlying judgment the the judgment  got all the process that was due to them all the due process they were entitled to as far as registration goes in the original lawsuit if the judgment creditors had tried to change the substantive judgment somehow to increase the amount of money that was owed or to add a party who wasn't a party of the original lawsuit then we would be changing a substantive right and there would be a due process issue when all we're doing is increasing the number  and if the judgment debtors transferred funds to washington we would be ready to try to execute the judgment there and in this day and age when funds can be wired electronically transferred and sen computer you know nanosecond speed the purpose of section one thousand nine hundred sixty three is in force by allowing these sorts of registrations without requiring any known contacts otherwise it's just an invitation for the judgment debtors to find the jurisdiction that you haven't registered yet and send the money there real quickly the whole purpose of section one thousand nine hundred sixty three is to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen and since again it's simply  procedural mechanism to increase the number of venues where the judgement could be enforced it's not affecting a substantive right and therefore there's no trigger for due process again the defendants the judgment that has got all the process that was it certainly is yes you are and they get that due process both when they litigate the original case and if we use the arizona procedures to try to execute on their assets they get their due process there too but if all we're doing is registering it in another state and we haven't tried to enforce it and we're simply you know using the policies underlying section one thousand nine hundred sixty three to ensure that we're ready to to get that judgment in force if we need it then we're on safe ground we want to reserve well i would reserve like to reserve the rest of my time round good morning your honors please the court i'm david bass i'm appearing on behalf of all of the pelleas and defend to focus for i go through a structured outline on something that came up so it's absolutely clear for this panel counsel pointed out that no one has tried to enforce this judgment in washington let me make it absolutely clear the findings in the district court which absolutely got this issue correct on jurisdiction is that there was no personal jurisdiction in washington conceded by fidelity there was no reason to be in washington they didn't live there they never been there they own no property there they didn't transfer anything the hypothetical idea that maybe if and some point they could electronically the question that you know the reason why the out and the policy is we want judgment creditors to be able to collect judgments when the assets could get dispersed throughout the united states i agree with that who couldn't that's what the statute provides so if there is assets are there if there are assets and money in washington register and go get it but it also says and the weight of the afore that every single case deals with personal jurisdiction you register the judgment in a new district because the people or are there or the assets are there and the and the statute says that by registering a district court judgment from another district and a new district in a new state you are creating a regional judgement as if there had been a trial on the merits in that district so in this case and to quote fidelity's counsel they blew it in arizona what's your best case i think the district court judgment and that is it is a court in this case i think the district court in this case and i think that the statute i think the del prado do you know if you want your best case not the statute i think there's i think there's a listen to the question thank you your honor i apologize i think the del prado case is a case where a successive registration of a judgment was it was recognized as an independent judgment in the second court and state because that original judgment that came out of that second state was a state where there was no issue as to jurisdiction there isn't a single case cited by anyone that shows that a a in a regional judgment can be created a district without having personal jurisdiction there are cases such as dichter where a case was registered in the judgment in the state in the district and subsequent to that time the judgment debtor came into the jurisdiction therefore there was no issue as to whether decided to side they revived it there were assets there was issued by a sister state is valid after there's jurisdiction over that it was assumed that there was jurisdiction there were assets in the state where it was registered and so your your answer to that question is that registering a judgment does trigger due process right for for it to be trying to understand how yes i mean the statute doesn't say anything about that because it's assumed that there is jurisdiction in the state of ohio where they or illinois where it was registered v v point in this case and in the ninth circuit the ninth circuit in the in the prior is that true even if the creditor has not attempted to enforce the judgment i mean doesn't that just become true when the creditor tries to force the charge it depends where they're trying to enforce it while here it's arizona  here in arizona when you try to enforce it in arizona you're coming to the arizona court and you're saying i have a washington judgment and presenting it as if there had been a washington judgment referred to in a regional judgement on the merits as if the parties had fully litigated that judgement as if the parties had a trial on essentially what what would happen without that is that there would be a proliferation of judgments without having any kind of connection to jurisdiction over the defendants that is not consistent with the rule that's been established by federal court in contrast there were cases cited state courts which allowed for a wait and see a register like a u c c one as a blanket registration if someone came into the jurisdiction they would enforce it none of those cases involve successive registration of a registered judgment in another state where there was no jurisdiction here but i believe the prior ruling on the narrow issue of successive registration means is that the ninth circuit is not has not and under federal law is not taking the position of a wait and see registration means something hundred sixty three it means that a case has been commenced and a judgment has been concluded as if it were a final judgment on the merits from a due process what what is the unfairness or potential unfairness that occurs when the judgment is registered in a place where the judgment debtor has no minimum contacts surprise they should know where judgments are being entered against them these are judgments written in stone at these are judgement says if you've just had a trial and that sure is stiction they should know they should be able to defend against  the proliferation of actions against them but they did defend that in california i mean it's not like they didn't have an opportunity i mean this is basically this is the california where was the original california ok and it's still valid in california there's a business operating in california they can enforce in california it's not as if adeleke has lost an opportunity to enforce a judgment they have an opportunity to have a valid california judgment  california but you're saying that the it's unfair to register the judgment in washington because they did your you know your clients presumably to have a chance to defend against it but they did what they had and they didn't have a chance to defend against having a judgment created i mean you're trying to say that it's the same judgment but it's not the same judge when it's in washington and i'm having trouble with that argument it isn't the same judgment ok under procedural law it's an entirely new judgment and they had an opportunity to defend against that judgment in california your clients did but the washington judgment is a new judgment even though it's based on california it becomes a new judgment to every court where it's registered as a washington judgment not as a california judgment and the only reason there is some trickery the only reason they went to washington is because the arizona judgment expired so they went there and created a new one to bypass that failure it's one of those things where the question is are that disallow under the law i disallowed under law under the law because the procedural law and the cases treat the registration in federal courts not in state courts where they do have a wait and see but in federal court as an original judgment and you call a registration the creation of a new judgment as an independent free standing judgment we are triggering the requirement that there be personal jurisdiction when you say surprise i'm not sure i understand exactly what you mean are you saying surprise in the sense that someone who thinks the statue of limitations has run on a cause of action and has breathed a sigh of relief is surprised to learn that in fact they've been sued someplace where the statute hasn't run is that what you mean by surprise i think that's part of it i think that i think that you should be given an opportunity to limit judgments against oneself throughout the united states if you're being sued you'd like to know about it you'd like to have an opportunity to respond  the federal scheme of judgment collection while favorable to judgment creditors it also says that the creation of any judgment creates a new judgment on a new action and a new action requires jurisdiction what rights change for your client though and that means it's relation i mean it's not a different amount they have to pay it's same obligations that they would have had this is an eighteen year old dispute and in several cases a racketeering case i defended there's more been spent on attorney's fees than the amount of the original judgment it's a grievance between device chair former vice chairman and the chairman so we have to be put this case in contacts it's more of a grudge match than anything else and bad facts can create bad law you can just answer my question what rights have changed for your clients well the right that a judgment should have only a short life in arizona relatively short has been abridged because even though arizona has said in the ninth circuit referred it back to to the supreme court of arizona two other decisions before as to whether or not there could be the type of registration that fidelity did and ruled that there can't there's a defined period of time for judgments in arizona so that protection under arizona law has been eliminated by creating a successive judgment on a judgment that is deemed an independent and original action in in washington where one could not exist they couldn't s him there they couldn't get another judgment there but they have created that and they dig they did an end around the arizona law and the arizona supreme court's ruling that said we respect our statue of limitations and our procedures on judgment debtor rights and collection that's what's changed but even putting it putting that aside the impact of this just a straight reading of the statute it doesn't say it it doesn't eliminate personal jurisdiction it actually embraces it by referring to a regional judgment and there is no case that allowed for this type of and around that happened on a judgment that was created from another judgment as in the case of don't prado there was always a reason the always it wasn't to subvert the state in which it's being enforced arizona's prior ruling on the debt this has the appearance of a new  know your honor it has the appearance of being a new judgment in washington distinct from the old california judgment that expired in arizona and i suppose suppose that that appearance substan because yours arizona court had already said that this is it wonderful because there is an arizona court saw it saw it for what it was if it made a mistake at all it was a mistake that well you have to have personal yours yours just as it was not full so i mean what's the harm of you know if you say it had the appearance of in your judgment well it wasn't full because we brought it to the court's attention right so would not feel that's correct so what's the heart of the fed the prison in your judgment and because it's creating a new judgment no you said it has the appearance yes you know what the harm of the parents if you know the truth and get as it's bypassing the prior registration and expiration of the same know you're doing is repeating what the court did and i don't use that well thing well that is what that is what the court did it is it is a it is a judgment that could not have been issued on facts or claims asserted against the defendants in the state of washington it could not have existed as an independent judgment against the defendants in the state of washington  what's what if we had not brought it to the attention and that's why that's the case you can argue if that happened ever but that's not your case here oh no you can't you know i mean to say had the presence of a new judgment is  i appreciate it thank you mr case opposing counsel basically is saying because the washington judgment is a new judgment for every single reason it conceivable therefore it must be the sort of new judgment that requires personal jurisdiction this very issue was addressed by judge and later justice blackmun in the stanford versus utley case of page two seventy one after deciding that the judgment creditor in that case could take advantage of the registration state's longer statute of limitations for enforcing a judgment judge blackman went on to say we do not go so far as to say that registration effects in new judgment in the registration court for every conceivable purpose neither do we say that it fails to do so for any particular purpose this court's decision today is discrete it's just a figure out whether the registration judgment creates a new judgment such that it doesn't require personal jurisdiction it's an aspect of the very issue that judge blackman pointed out the best case for me is the  dictator vs disco case which cites stanford versus oakley and explains that because registration simply expands the number of venues that a judgment could be enforceable it doesn't affect the substantive rights of the judgment debtors it's simply a procedural issue and because it's procedural and not substantive and doesn't change the judgement it doesn't trigger any due process extra protections beyond what the judgment  the original lawsuit the only other point i'd like to make is that the major challenge that judgment debtors have in this case is they don't like the prior appeals decision by the ninth circuit they consider it a way to evade the arizona limitations on collecting judgments but does i mentioned i think it's just good lawyer if something doesn't work going on one avenue you find another avenue the tries to work it's what you do for your client in this case section one thousand nine hundred sixty three was purposely and acted so that we could do this sort of thing and try to collect the judgment that otherwise would be difficult or impossible to collect one person subterfuge is another's creative lawyer exactly or are a few have any more questions i'll be happy to answer them otherwise i'm finished