## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2497

___________ George Deretich, * * Appellant, * * v. * * City of St. Francis; St. Francis City * Council Members from 1980 until * the present; Steven Braastad; Robert * Patterson; Raymond Steinke; Dale * Appeals from the United States Frederikson; Carol Berg; Walt Hiller; * District Court for the William Hawkins, individually and in * District of Minnesota. his representative capacity of St. * Francis City Attorney; Mateffy * [UNPUBLISHED] Engineering & Associates, Inc., * individually and in its representative * capacity of St. Francis City Engineer; * Sharon Fulkerson, individually and in * her representative capacity of St. * Francis City Clerk; Stephen M. Klein, * individually and in his representative * capacity of St. Francis City Planner; * Marvin E. Gustafson; Burke and * Hawkins; Barna, Guzy Merrill, Hynes, * and Giancolo, Ltd.; Richard Merrill; * Steffen, Munstenteiger, Bearse, Beens, * Parta, and Peterson; Ronald Peterson; * Lester Mateffy; First National Bank of * Anoka; Steve Schmitt, individually and * in his representative capacity of First * National Bank of Anoka Commercial *-2-

Loan Officer; Gramont Corporation, * a Minnesota corporation, * * Appellees, * * v. * * Deretich & Timmons, P.A., * * Third Party Defendant, * *

--------------------- * * City of St. Francis; Steven Braastad; * Robert Patterson; Raymond Steinke; * Dale Frederikson; Carol Berg; Walt * Hiller; Sharon Fulkerson; Stephen M. * Klein; William Hawkins; Burke and * Hawkins; Steffen, Munstenteiger, * Bearse, Beens, Parta, and Peterson; * Ronald Peterson; Marvin E. * Gustafson; Gramont Corporation; First * National Bank of Anoka; Steve * Schmitt; Richard Merrill; Barna, Guzy * Merrill, Hynes, and Giancolo; * Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.; Risk * Enterprise Mgt.; Minnesota Lawyers * Mutual Insurance; Richard Merrill, as * Trustee of the Estate of Marvin E. * Gustafson, * * Appellees, * *-3-

v. * * George Deretich; Mary Timmons * Sarazin, also known as Mary E. * Timmons, * * Appellants. *

___________ No. 97-3925

___________ Mateffy Engineering & Associates, * Inc., suing as Mateffy Engineering, * Inc.; Estate of Leslie H. Mateffy, Jr., * * Appellees, * * v. * * George Deretich; Mary Sarazin * Timmons, also known as Mary E. * Timmons, * * Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 1998 Filed: June 19, 1998

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of 1 Minnesota. The Honorable Edward J. Devitt, late a United States District Judge for th e 2 District of Minnesota. -4- PER CURIAM.
In separa te actions, Mateffy Engineering, Inc. and the Estate of Leslie H

. Matef fy, Jr. (Mateffy), and the City of St. Francis and related parties (St. Francis ) sough t to renew a judgment entered in 1986 against George Deretich and Mar y Timmons Sarazin (c ollectively defendants). The district court renewed the judgment 1 in each action, and defendants now separately appeal those orders. As both appeal s necessitate resolution of the same issue of law, we address both in this opinion. The judg ment St. Francis and Mateffy sought to renew arose from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought against them by defendants in 1983. The district court ha d 2 dismissed that action as frivolous an d granted attorneys & fees and costs to Mateffy and St. Francis. This court affirmed, and assessed appeal costs against defendants; th e dist rict court amended its prior judgment of costs to include those assessed by thi s court, entering the amended judgment on December 23, 1986.

Def endants did not satisfy the judgment. In September 1996, St. Franci s brought an action to renew and extend the judgment, and on December 9, 1996 , Matef fybrought a similar action. The district court concluded that it had ancillary jur isdiction over the actions, rejected defendants & assertion that Mateffy & s action was time-barred, and renewed the judgment as to each plaintiff for ten years. Defendants argue in b oth appeals that the district court erred in concluding that ithad an cillary jurisdiction to renew the judgment. Specifically, they argue that although t his action involves a debt on a judgment entered in federal court, the action-5-

arises independently under state law (i.e., it is a n independent contract action) and thus cannot confer juris diction on the federal court. St. Francis and Mateffy both maintain th atthe court did not err in determining that it had ancillary jurisdiction, because a federal court retains jurisdiction to enforce its own judgments.

We conclude that the district court properly exercised its ancillary jurisdiction to renew t he judgment. See In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum , 85 F.3d 372, 375 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court & s finding of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo). A fe deral court may assert ancillary jurisdiction “to enable a court to functio n successfu lly, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.” See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 379-80 (1994). To this end , the Supreme Court has approved the use of ancillary jurisdiction “over a broad range of supplementary proceedings . . . to assist in the protection and enforcement of federal judgments--including attachment, mandamus, garnishment, and the prejudgment avoidance of fraudulent conveyances.” See Peacock v. Thomas , 516 U.S. 34 9, 356 (1996). Such jurisdiction, however, may not extend “beyond attempts to execu te, or to guarantee eventual executability of, a federal judgment.” Id. at 357. Because St. Francis & s and Mateffy & s actions to renew the dist rict court judgment sought simply to maintain its viability, not to extend its effect beyo nd the underlying judgment, thes e actions fall within the range of actions brought to “guarantee eventua l executability” of a federal judgment. Defendants also argue that Mateffy & s acti on was time-barred. Under Minnesota law, an action to renew a judgment must be commenced within te n years after the entry of such judgment. SeeMinn. Stat. A nn. § 541.04 (West 1988) (statute of limitations); In re Sitarz , 150 B.R. 710, 724 n.20 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1993). Defendants assert that th e district court should have applied Minnesota procedural law to this state-la w renewal acti on, that under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 3.01 an action is no t commenced until service, and that they were not served until January1997. We review de novo the district court & s determination that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3-6-

governed Mateffy & s action, and thus t hat the action was timely, and conclude the court did not err. S ee Cortese v. United States , 782 F.2d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 1986 ) (determination regarding whether state or federal law governs ac tion is question of law; reviewing de novo).
In diver sity actions where the underlying cause of action is based on state law, federal courts apply state procedural law; thus, state law dictates th e appropriate statute of limitations as well as the commencement of an action. See Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. , 446 U.S. 740, 751-53 (1980). In actions brought in federal court based on a f e deral question, however, “[t]his requirement, naturally, does not apply.” See West
v. Conrail , 481 U.S. 35, 39 & n.4 (1987) (holding that even though statute o f limitations was borrowed from another federal statu te, Rule 3--and not commencement rule found in statute from which limitations period was borrowed--applied to action); cf. Henderson v. United States , 116 U.S. 1638, 1640-42, 1648 (1996) (in action s aris ing under federal law, “commenced in compliance with the governing statute o f limitations, the manner and timing of serving process are generally nonjurisdictiona l matters of # procedure & controlled by the Federal Rules”; concluding Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 supersed ed Suits in Admiralty Act provision mandating service in shorter period o f time). Although Mateffy & s renewal action is not itself a federal-question acti on, the very ba sis for exercising ancillary jurisdiction over it is its close affinity to the underlyin g fe deral-question action. We thus conclude that the same procedural law--federal-

- applies to both actions. Under Rule 3, Mateffy & s action was commenced on December 9, 1996, w ithin ten years of the December 23, 1986 judgment it sought to renew, and was thus timely. Accordingly, the judgments are affirmed.-7-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.