Opinion ID: 6319850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jurisdiction Over API

Text: The district court also noted in its judgment that no relief had been granted against API. However, it nonetheless retained jurisdiction over API so it could grant any appropriate relief should PPI, Performance Probiotics, or Hughes transfer assets into the entity. Hughes asserts that the exercise of jurisdiction over API was improper because there was no evidence that it “did anything—let alone something actionable.” The Supreme Court has held that a district court has “jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of [its] inherent power to enforce its judgments.” Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 356 (1996) (noting that 28 Case: 20-50671 Document: 00516223471 Page: 29 Date Filed: 03/03/2022 No. 20-50671 “[w]ithout jurisdiction to enforce a judgment entered by a federal court, ‘the judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate’”) (quoting Riggs v. Johnson Cnty., 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 166, 187 (1867)); see also Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 380 (1994) (explaining a federal court has ancillary jurisdiction “to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees”). This ancillary enforcement jurisdiction extends to a “broad range of supplementary proceedings involving third parties,” but does not permit “a subsequent lawsuit to impose an obligation to pay an existing federal judgment on a person not already liable for that judgment.” Peacock, 516 U.S. at 356–57. Under Peacock, “a district court has enforcement jurisdiction over a judgment creditor’s fraudulent conveyance claims against transferees who were not parties to the underlying action,” so long as the creditor limits himself to collecting the judgment debtor’s assets, rather than attempting to impose liability on the transferees for the original judgment. Epperson v. Ent. Express, Inc., 242 F.3d 100, 106 (2d Cir. 2001); accord Ellis v. All Steel Const., Inc., 389 F.3d 1031, 1034 (10th Cir. 2004); U.S.I. Props. Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 230 F.3d 489, 498–500 (1st Cir. 2000); Thomas, Head & Greisen Emps. Tr. v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449, 1454 & n.7 (9th Cir. 1996). Here, the district court did not retain jurisdiction over API to impose liability on API for the original judgment. Rather, the court retained jurisdiction so that it could counter any improper transfers by PPI, Performance Probiotics, or Hughes to API. We find no error in the district court’s retention of jurisdiction over API as it comports with Peacock.