[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13434

____________________

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LOS RANCHOS LATINOS INC.,

d.b.a. Los Ranchos Mexican & Salvadorian 

Restaurant, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-02998-SCJ

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 1 of 11
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13434

Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

When a money judgment goes dormant under Georgia law, 

the judgment holder has a short window to renew or revive it “by 

an action or by scire facias.” Ga. Code § 9–12–61. After J&J Sports

Productions, Inc.’s money judgment and attorney’s fees award

against Los Ranchos Latinos Inc. went dormant, J&J moved under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) to revive the judgment and 

award by scire facias. Los Ranchos opposed the rule 69(a) motion, 

arguing that it: (1) did not strictly comply with Georgia’s scire facias procedure; and (2) listed the wrong dates for the judgment and 

attorney’s fees award. Under the party presentation principle, Los 

Ranchos argued, the district court couldn’t step in to correct the 

dates or fix J&J’s errors in complying with Georgia’s scire facias 

procedure. 

The district court granted J&J’s motion, concluding that rule 

69(a) only required J&J to substantially comply with Georgia’s scire 

facias procedure, J&J did substantially comply with the procedure,

and the party presentation principle didn’t prevent the district 

court from applying the correct law or fixing the mistaken dates. 

After careful review and oral argument, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

J&J is a promotion company that held the exclusive television rights to a boxing match that aired on November 14, 2009. Los 

Ranchos, a family-owned restaurant, played the match for its 

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 2 of 11
22-13434 Opinion of the Court 3

customers without J&J’s permission and without paying for the television rights. J&J sued Los Ranchos, alleging that the unauthorized broadcast violated the Communications Act of 1934 and the 

Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 

1992. When Los Ranchos failed to answer the complaint, the district court entered a default judgment against it for $15,000 plus 

costs and attorney’s fees on December 7, 2011. On January 3, 2012, 

the district court awarded J&J $1,097.50 in attorney’s fees. 

J&J had seven years to collect on its judgment and attorney’s

fees award before the judgment and award went dormant. Ga. 

Code § 9–12–60(a)(1). But, while J&J didn’t collect in time, that’s 

still not the end of it for a judgment debtor like Los Ranchos. Under Georgia law, J&J had three years to renew or revive the judgment and award either “by an action or by scire facias.” Id. § 9–12–

61. J&J chose scire facias, which “resembles a summons,” “directs 

the [judgment debtor] to appear” and “show cause why the identified judgment should not be revived,” and must be personally 

served on the judgment debtor by a local sheriff. See Popham v. Jordan, 628 S.E.2d 660, 661–62 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Ga. Code 

§ 9–12–63). 

J&J started the revival process on November 24, 2021, by filing a motion to revive the judgment and attorney’s fees award under rule 69(a). But the revival motion gave the dates of the judgment and award as “July 15, 2014” and did not request that the 

court set a revival hearing or order Los Ranchos to appear. J&J 

served the revival motion on Los Ranchos by certified mail, 

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 3 of 11
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13434

explaining that, because its motion was “simply a continuation of 

[its] original action,” mail service was proper under the federal procedural rules. 

In response, Los Ranchos entered an appearance for the first 

time and argued there were two reasons the district court should 

deny the revival motion. First, Los Ranchos asserted that rule 69(a) 

required J&J to strictly comply with Georgia’s scire facias procedure. In Los Ranchos’s view, J&J’s revival motion didn’t strictly 

comply because it did not request a show-cause order that required 

Los Ranchos to appear, and the motion was not personally served 

on Los Ranchos. Second, Los Ranchos pointed to the wrong dates 

for the judgment and award in the revival motion, and maintained 

that, under the party presentation principle, the district court could 

not fix the dates without J&J filing an amended motion. 

The district court rejected both of Los Ranchos’s arguments. 

Rule 69(a), the district court explained, only required J&J to substantially comply with Georgia’s scire facias procedure, and J&J

could do so by personally serving Los Ranchos with the revival motion and an order directing Los Ranchos to appear. And the party 

presentation principle didn’t prevent the district court from fixing 

the wrong dates in the revival motion because it was “clear” J&J 

wanted to revive the only judgment and attorney’s fees award entered in the case. So the district court construed the revival motion 

as requesting “an order in the nature of scire facias,” fixed the 

wrong dates, and issued a show-cause order requiring Los Ranchos 

to explain why the judgment and attorney’s fees award shouldn’t 

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 4 of 11
22-13434 Opinion of the Court 5

be revived. Then, the district court ordered J&J to personally serve 

the revival motion and show-cause order on Los Ranchos and set a 

revival hearing for August 15, 2022. 

J&J first tried to comply with the show-cause order by serving Los Ranchos’s registered agent through a private process 

server. But Los Ranchos again objected, this time because service

was not completed through the local sheriff. Los Ranchos also argued that the district court violated the party presentation principle 

when it issued the show-cause order and when it ordered J&J to 

personally serve the revival motion and show-cause order. The district court agreed with Los Ranchos that J&J needed to personally 

serve Los Ranchos through the sheriff, postponed the revival hearing, and ordered J&J to re-serve Los Ranchos.

Eventually, J&J served Los Ranchos through the Gwinnet 

County sheriff on August 31, 2022. The district court held the rescheduled revival hearing thirty days later on September 30, 2022. 

At the hearing, Los Ranchos renewed its strict compliance and 

party presentation principle arguments. The district court once 

again rejected them, found that J&J substantially complied with 

Georgia’s scire facias procedure, and granted J&J’s revival motion. 

Los Ranchos appeals the district court’s revival order. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade Corr. & 

Rehab. Dep’t, 878 F.3d 1008, 1010 (11th Cir. 2017) (emphasis omitted). And we review for an abuse of discretion whether a district 

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 5 of 11
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13434

court has violated the party presentation principle. See United States 

v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 375 (2020) (holding “that the appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party 

presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion”); see also United 

States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 872 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (“As 

federal courts do not have carte blanche to depart from the principle of party presentation[,] . . . it is an abuse of discretion for a court 

to override a party’s deliberate waiver.” (cleaned up)).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Los Ranchos continues to argue that rule 69(a) 

required J&J to strictly comply with Georgia’s scire facias procedure and that J&J failed to do so. Los Ranchos also contends that 

the district court violated the party presentation principle by fixing 

the wrong dates in the revival motion, issuing the show-cause order, and directing personal service on Los Ranchos. We discuss 

these arguments in turn.

Compliance with Georgia’s Scire Facias Procedure

Rule 69(a) allows a federal court to revive a dormant judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1); see also In re Bailey, 90 F.4th 1158, 

1167–68 (11th Cir. 2024) (recognizing that judgment revival is available under rule 69(a)). If “a federal statute governs” a “proceeding[]

supplementary to and in aid of judgment or execution”—including

a judgment revival proceeding—rule 69(a)(1) requires that the proceeding comply with the federal statute “to the extent it applies.” 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). But, if there is no federal statute, rule 

69(a)(1) instead requires a federal revival proceeding to “accord 

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 6 of 11
22-13434 Opinion of the Court 7

with the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Id. 

The parties agree that no federal statute governs here, so they look 

to Georgia’s scire facias procedure.

Like rule 69(a), Georgia’s scire facias procedure allows a 

judgment holder to revive a dormant judgment. See Ga. Code 

§ 9– 12–61. The scire facias proceeding is “not an original action but 

is the continuation of the action in which the judgment was obtained.” Id. § 9–12–62. The Georgia scire facias procedure has four

requirements that must be met before a court can revive a judgment. First, to get the process started, the clerk of the court “in 

which the judgment was obtained” must sign and issue the scire 

facias. Id. § 9–12–63. As we’ve explained, a scire facias “resembles 

a summons” and “directs the [judgment debtor] to appear” and 

“show cause why the identified judgment should not be revived.” 

Popham, 628 S.E.2d at 662. Second, the scire facias must be “returnable to the court” that issued it. Ga. Code § 9–12–63. Third, a local 

sheriff must personally serve a copy of the scire facias on the judgment debtor. Id. And fourth, personal service through the sheriff 

must be completed at least twenty days before a revival hearing. 

See id.

Los Ranchos argues that the revival proceedings here did not

“accord with” the Georgia scire facias procedure, as demanded by 

rule 69(a), because J&J did not strictly comply with the four requirements. But we recently rejected the exact same argument in 

In re Bailey, another case involving Georgia’s scire facias procedure. 

See 90 F.4th at 1167–68. There, we held that rule 69(a) does “not 

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 7 of 11
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13434

require revival proceedings in federal court to strictly follow statelaw procedures.” Id. at 1168. Instead, “revival proceedings in federal court must only . . . substantially comply” with state revival 

procedure. Id.

Applied here, J&J substantially complied with Georgia’s 

scire facias procedure. First, J&J moved for revival of the judgment 

and award, and the district court issued its show-cause order. Second, the show-cause order directed Los Ranchos to appear before 

the court that issued it. Third, J&J personally served the revival 

motion and show-cause order on Los Ranchos through a local sheriff. And fourth, the sheriff served Los Ranchos thirty days before 

the revival hearing. 

J&J’s compliance with Georgia’s scire facias procedure was 

even more substantial than what we held satisfied rule 69(a) in Bailey. See id. To revive his judgment, the Bailey judgment holder filed 

a revival motion and served the motion, along with notice of a revival hearing, on the judgment debtor by mail. Id. at 1165. The 

Bailey court did not issue a show-cause order, and the judgment 

holder did not personally serve the judgment debtor through a local sheriff. Id. Even so, we held that the judgment holder substantially complied with Georgia’s scire facias procedure because the 

federal proceedings gave the judgment debtor the same thing Georgia’s scire facias procedure provided: “notice of court proceedings 

and the opportunity ‘to show cause why the identified judgment 

should not be revived.’” Id. at 1170 (quoting Popham, 628 S.E.2d at 

662). That’s what Los Ranchos had in our case—notice of the

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 8 of 11
22-13434 Opinion of the Court 9

revival hearing and an opportunity to object to judgment revival. 

For that reason, we reach the same conclusion here as we did in 

Bailey: J&J substantially complied with Georgia’s scire facias procedure. See id.

Pushing back, Los Ranchos argues that J&J didn’t substantially comply because J&J’s revival motion did not resemble a summons and wasn’t—at least initially—personally served by the sheriff. But nothing in Georgia’s scire facias procedure required J&J’s 

motion to look like a summons or be personally served. See Ga. 

Code § 9–12–63. In any event, as in Bailey, even if J&J didn’t meet 

all of the state’s procedural requirements, it did enough to substantially comply with them. See 90 F.4th at 1168.

Party Presentation Principle

Next, Los Ranchos argues that the district court violated the 

party presentation principle by: fixing the dates in J&J’s revival motion; issuing the show-cause order even though J&J did not request 

one; and requiring J&J to personally serve Los Ranchos even 

though J&J argued service by mail was enough. We find no abuse 

of discretion.

“Under the party presentation principle, American courts 

function in an ‘adversarial system of adjudication’ whereby ‘we 

rely on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to 

courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.’” 

Campbell, 26 F.4th at 872 (quoting Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at 375). 

In other words, “when cases arise, courts normally decide only 

questions presented by the parties.” Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at 376

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 9 of 11
10 Opinion of the Court 22-13434

(cleaned up). Thus, it is “inappropriate for a court to raise an issue 

sua sponte in most situations.” Campbell, 26 F.4th at 872 (emphasis 

omitted).

But “when an issue or claim is properly before [a] court, the 

court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the 

parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and 

apply the proper construction of governing law.” United States v. 

Undetermined Quantities of All Articles of Finished & In-Process Foods, 

936 F.3d 1341, 1350 (11th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). Indeed, a court

“ha[s] a responsibility to interpret the law correctly” once a party 

raises an issue or claim. See McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-

Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1099 (11th Cir. 2017).

Here, the parties—and not the district court—raised the issue of reviving the dormant judgment and attorney’s fees award 

under Georgia’s scire facias procedure. Once J&J filed its revival 

motion and invoked the Georgia procedure, the district court had 

the “responsibility to interpret the law” and correctly apply the 

Georgia scire facias statute, which is exactly why it fixed the wrong 

dates in J&J’s revival motion, issued the show-cause order, and ordered J&J to personally serve Los Ranchos through a local sheriff. 

See id.; cf. Jefferson v. Sewon Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 911, 923 (11th Cir. 

2018) (“[P]arties cannot waive the application of the correct 

law[.]”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by correctly 

applying the law on an issue the parties raised and over which they 

were litigating.

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 10 of 11
22-13434 Opinion of the Court 11

CONCLUSION

The district court rightly concluded that J&J substantially 

complied with Georgia’s scire facias procedure. And the district 

court did not violate the party presentation principle by fixing the 

dates of the judgment and award and applying the law correctly 

once J&J placed the revival issue before the court. We therefore 

affirm the district court’s order granting J&J’s revival motion.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13434 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 08/01/2024 Page: 11 of 11