Opinion ID: 821020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Postjudgment Collection Proceedings

Text: Having won a very large judgment, JPMorgan sought to protect its enforcement options while the appeal was pending. On October 19, 2010, JPMorgan issued citations to discover assets on which to execute its judg10 Nos. 10-3413 & 12-2123 ment. Asia Pulp moved to stay enforcement of the citations, claiming that a “Provisional Injunction” issued by an Indonesian court in 2008 in an unrelated case prohibited it from complying with postjudgment collection proceedings. Judge Holderman referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown, and on Novem- ber 16, 2011, she rejected Asia Pulp’s argument and ordered it to comply with the asset-discovery citations. Asia Pulp moved for reconsideration, but Judge Brown denied the motion. Asia Pulp then filed objections with the district court pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On January 10, 2012, Judge Holderman set a briefing schedule. Eight days later, however, Asia Pulp filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal Magistrate Judge Brown’s ruling. This appeal was docketed as Appeal No. 12-1136. We questioned appellate jurisdiction and issued a jurisdictional order. In the meantime Judge Holderman entered an order overruling Asia Pulp’s objections, confirming the soundness of Magistrate Judge Brown’s conclusions, and ordering Asia Pulp to comply with the asset-discovery citations. 7 The court held that Asia Pulp 7 Although the “filing of a timely notice of appeal confers jurisdiction over the matter on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control,” Henry v. Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1228, 1240 (7th Cir. 1986), that “rule does not operate . . . where there is a purported appeal from a nonappealable order,” United States v. Bastanipour, 697 F.2d 170, 173 (7th Cir. 1982). Magistrate Judge Brown’s ruling was a (continued...) Nos. 10-3413 & 12-2123 11 had not established that it would be subject to sanctions under the Indonesian injunction if forced to comply with the asset-discovery citations. The court also held that principles of international comity favored enforcement of the citations. After unsuccessfully moving for reconsideration, Asia Pulp filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s postjudgment orders. This is Appeal No. 12-2123. Because the magistrate judge’s ruling was not a final, appealable order, we dismissed Appeal No. 12-1136 for lack of appellate jurisdiction. We consolidated the remaining appeals and ordered the parties to specifically address the question of appellate jurisdiction in Appeal No. 12-2123, Asia Pulp’s appeal from Judge Holderman’s order denying the motion to stay and compelling compliance with the asset-discovery citations. The consolidated appeals are now ready for decision.