Opinion ID: 78616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Analysis.Relevant Statutes

Text: The process for registering the judgment of one federal district court in another federal district court is outlined in 28 U.S.C. § 1963. The federal court applies state law, however, when renewing a judgment that has already been registered in that state. Thus, this renewal case centers around the construction of three sections of Arizona law, Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated §§ 12-1551(B), 12-1611, and 1-215. The first section of Arizona law at issue, § 12-1551(B), states: An execution or other process shall not be issued upon a judgment after the expiration of five years from the date of its entry unless the judgment is renewed by affidavit or ... an action is brought on it within five years from the date of the entry of the judgment or of its renewal. Section 12-1611 is similar though not precisely the same. It states, [a] judgment may be renewed by action thereon at any time within five years after the date of the judgment. The question in this case turns on the definition of action in these provisions. Based on these two sections, the district court found that Fidelity's collection activities in Arizona were sufficient to renew the judgment. In the alternative, the district court determined that Fidelity's RICO action, filed in California, would also be sufficient to renew the judgment. The district court did not address Arizona Revised Statutes § 1-215, which provides that [i]n the statutes and laws of this state, unless the context otherwise requires ... `Action' includes any matter or proceeding in a court, civil or criminal.