Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT

CO.,

Plaintiff

 v.

PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-99-3073 MMC

ORDER GRANTING KIRITCHENKO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENT AND

RELATED DECLARATIONS; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket No. 976)

Before the Court is the motion filed March 17, 2006 by defendants Peter Kiritchenko,

Izabella Kiritchenko, and Ludmilla Kiritchenko (collectively, “Kiritchenko defendants”) to

strike plaintiff Universal Trading & Investment Co.’s (“UTI”) registration of a judgment in

favor of UTI and against United Energy Systems of Ukraine (“UESU”), entered July 7, 2005

by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“UESU judgment”), as

well as associated declarations. UTI has filed opposition to the motion; the Kiritchenko

defendants have filed a reply. Having considered the papers filed in support of and in

opposition to the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral

argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the April 21, 2006 hearing, and rules as

follows.

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1000 Filed 04/20/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

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

1

 The filing guidelines are included in the “Welcome Packet” available from the

Clerk’s Office, as well as on the Court’s website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov.

2

The Court agrees with the Kiritchenko defendants’ contention that registration in the

instant action is improper. The registration statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1963, “permits a federal

judgment rendered in one district to be registered in any other in the federal system without

the need to relitigate.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1963, Commentary on 1988 Revision. “It is usually

resorted to only when the judgment can’t be satisfied in the rendering district for want of

local property of the defendant, but can be enforced in some other district where the

defendant (now judgment debtor) does have property.” Id. 

In this district, judgments of another district are registered as separate actions. See

United States District Court for the Northern District of California Filing Guidelines ¶ 5.1

Assuming, arguendo, there may be circumstances where registration in a pending action

would be appropriate, no such circumstances exist in the instant case. Here, UESU, the

judgment debtor, is not a party to the instant action. Although UTI contends the UESU

judgment is enforceable against the Kiritchenko and Lazarenko defendants because those

parties are in privity with UESU, the claims on which judgment was awarded against UESU

in the Massachusetts action are not asserted against the Kiritchenko or Lazarenko

defendants in the instant action. If UTI wishes to initiate proceedings in this district to

enforce the UESU judgment, it must file a separate action.

Accordingly, the Kiritchenko defendants’ motion to strike is hereby GRANTED, and

Docket Nos. 961 through 965 and 970 are hereby STRICKEN from the record without

prejudice to UTI’s filing a new action to enforce the UESU judgment.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1000 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2