Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-mc-00026/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-mc-00026-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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

 While 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) does not expressly authorize a magistrate judge to

consider post-judgment motions, a district judge may assign additional duties to a magistrate

judge that “are not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). Absent the parties’ consent, a magistrate judge exercising “additional

duties” jurisdiction, however, lacks “authority to enter a final, appealable order” in a postjudgment proceeding. Bank Tejarat v. Varsho-Saz, 981 F.2d 1257 (9th Cir. 1992) (magistrate

judge without authority to deny judgment-debtor’s claim of property exemption to writ of

execution) (citing with approval Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 416 (9th Cir. 1992);

United States v. Thompson, 285 Fed.Appx. 522, 524 (10th Cir. 2008)).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor,

vs.

Sylvia Deiana, 

Defendant/Judgment Debtor.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MC-11-0026-PHX-SRB (LOA)

ORDER

On May 18, 2011, the assigned District Judge, the Honorable Susan R. Bolton,

expanded the referral of this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge to include all

garnishment and post-judgment proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), LRCiv

72.1(b), LRCiv 72.2(a)(8).1

 (Doc. 22) 

Upon review of the docket, the Court notes that all captions of filings prepared

by counsel to date have not complied with LRCiv 7.1(a)(3). All counsel and unrepresented

parties are required “to use proper capitalization . . . of the party names[]” in the caption of

Case 2:11-mc-00026-SRB-LOA Document 23 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 5
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

2

 The Order indicates it was docketed on November 24, 2010. (Doc. 102 in No. 7:05-

cv-10447-GAY in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York)

- 2 -

the case. LRCiv 7.1(a)(3) Second, LRCiv 40.2(d) mandates that when a district judge has

referred a matter to a magistrate judge, all counsel and unrepresented party “shall

immediately provide a copy of any filed document relating to the referred matter to the

chambers of the referred Magistrate Judge.” LRCiv 40.2(d). The parties are hereby informed

that the Court will hereinafter enforce all the Local Rules.

Pending for ruling is Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor AXA Equitable Life

Insurance Company’s (“AXA Equitable”) Motion to Garnish Judgment Debtor’s

Community Property, seeking garnishment of the disability insurance benefits Plaintiff pays

Michael Deiana, a non-party, in satisfaction of the alleged community debt incurred by his

purported wife, Judgment Debtor Sylvia Deiana. (Doc. 19) The docket indicates this case

was opened in the District Court of Arizona on March 4, 2011with the filing of the

Certification of a Judgment To Be Registered in Another District and attached Order by the

Clerk for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Doc. 1 at

1-7) The Order and attached Exemplification Certificate explain that Judgment was entered

on or before February 24, 2011 against Defendant Sylvia Deiana only in the amount of

$295,800.00. (Id.

2

) The only reference in the Order to Michael Deiana is that Defendant

Sylvia Deiana owns a home “[i]n Arizona with her husband [that] does not have any value

as the mortgage on the property greatly exceeds its worth.” (Id. at 3)

Neither the docket nor AXA Equitable’s Motion to Garnish Michael Deiana’s

property reflects that Michael Deiana has been lawfully served with AXA Equitable’s

Motion to Garnish and its 79 pages of attachments other than the certification at the end of

the Motion that a copy was mailed on May 12, 2011 to “Michael Deiana, 40621 North Club

Pointe Drive, Anthem, Arizona 85086.” (Doc. 19 at 6) While this service pursuant to Rule

5(b)(2)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P., may provide adequate notice to Defendant Sylvia Deiana, it is not

lawful and binding service on Michael Deiana, a non-party to this litigation at this time. 

Case 2:11-mc-00026-SRB-LOA Document 23 Filed 05/20/11 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

Due process of law requires Michael Deiana be afforded notice of this

proceeding involving his property interests and an opportunity to be heard. Mullane v.

Central Hanorve Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950). “[O]ne is not bound by a

judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he

has not been made a party by service of process.” Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 40 (1940);

Liao v. Ashcroft, 2009 WL 636191, at * 3 (N.D.Cal., March 11, 2009) (“Service of process

(in the absence of a voluntary appearance or a conscious waiver) is an indispensable

prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction to proceed.”) (citing Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d

372, 373 (9th Cir. 1967)).

Before the Court will consider the merits of AXA Equitable’s Motion to

Garnish Michael Deiana’s property, Plaintiff shall serve Michael Deiana with copies of AXA

Equitable’s Motion to Garnish and its 79 pages of attachments pursuant to, and in

compliance with, Rule 4(e), (l), Fed.R.Civ.P., within 30 days of the entry of this Order. “[A]s

a matter of due process, the non-joined spouse must be given notice and an opportunity to

be heard before [h]e can be deprived of [his] interest in community property . . . .” Gagan

v. Sharar, 376 F.3d 987, 991 (9th Cir. 2004) (footnote omitted). “The purpose of joining the

[husband] as a party [is] to enable [him] to defend [his] interests in community property and

to argue that the debt should be a separate obligation of the [wife] rather than a community

debt. Id.(footnote omitted). Absent a voluntary waiver of service by Michael Deiana

pursuant to Rule 4(d), a voluntary appearance herein by Michael Deiana, or a motion by

Plaintiff to extend service beyond 30 days upon a showing of good cause and the exercise

of due diligence, failure to timely serve Michael Deiana may result in a denial without

prejudice of AXA Equitable’s Motion to Garnish Michael Deiana’s property.

 On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor AXA Equitable Life

Insurance Company shall serve Michael Deiana with copies of this signed Order, AXA

Equitable’s Motion to Garnish Judgment Debtor’s Community Property and its 79 pages of

attachments pursuant to, and in compliance with, Rule 4(e), (l), Fed.R.Civ.P., within 30 days

Case 2:11-mc-00026-SRB-LOA Document 23 Filed 05/20/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

of the entry of this Order. Absent a voluntary waiver of service by Michael Deiana pursuant

to Rule 4(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., a voluntary appearance herein by Michael Deiana, or a motion

by Plaintiff to extend service beyond 30 days upon a showing of good cause and the exercise

of due diligence, failure to timely serve Michael Deiana may result in a denial without

prejudice of AXA Equitable’s Motion to Garnish Michael Deiana’s property.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant/Judgment Debtor Sylvia Deiana

must file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Garnish Judgment Debtor’s Community

Property, doc. 19, on or before Friday, June 17, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael Deiana must file a response to

Plaintiff’s Motion to Garnish Judgment Debtor’s Community Property, doc. 19, within 30

days after Michael Deiana is served pursuant to this Order or, if Michael Deiana voluntarily

waives service pursuant to Rule 4(d), Fed.R.Civ.P., within 45 days of the filing of Michael

Deiana’s signed Rule 4(d) waiver of service.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff may file a single reply only

within 15 days after the last response is filed. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Garnish Judgment Debtor’s Community Property, doc.

19, will be deemed ready for decision without oral argument on the day following the date

set for filing a reply unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

Sylvia and Michael Deiana are hereby forewarned that each of them must

timely respond, either jointly or separately, to Plaintiff’s Motion to Garnish Judgment

Debtor’s Community Property. The Court may, in its discretion, treat the failure of either

to timely respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Garnish Judgment Debtor’s Community Property

as consent to the granting of Plaintiff’s Motion without further notice, and an order may be

entered accordingly pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Brydges

v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall comply with the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District

of Arizona, as amended on December 1, 2010. The District’s Rules of Practice may be found

Case 2:11-mc-00026-SRB-LOA Document 23 Filed 05/20/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

on the District Court’s internet web page at www.azd.uscourts.gov/. All other rules may be

found at www.uscourts.gov/rules/. The fact that a party is acting pro se does not discharge

this party’s duties to “abide by the rules of the court in which he litigates.” Carter v.

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986). Failure to comply

with a Local Rule may result in the striking the non-conforming filing or in the imposition

of other sanctions. LRCiv.7.1(d)(5), 83.1(f).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel and any party, if unrepresented,

shall use the above caption, number and initials on all further pleadings, briefings and other

filings herein: to wit: No. MC-11-0026-PHX-SRB (LOA).

Dated this 20th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:11-mc-00026-SRB-LOA Document 23 Filed 05/20/11 Page 5 of 5