Opinion ID: 748853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Judgment Enforcement Proceeding-The Hilao Action

Text: 4 In an attempt to collect on the judgment, the plaintiffs in the MDL case registered their judgment in the Central District of California. See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 95 F.3d 848, 850 (9th Cir.1996). Writs of execution and notices of levy were thereafter delivered to the Banks' offices in California. 1 The notices of levy purported to levy against deposit accounts in the name of Ferdinand E. Marcos or twenty-six of his alleged aliases or pseudonyms. Id. None of these deposit accounts were maintained at the California offices of either Bank. Id. 5 After the plaintiffs indicated that they were seeking assets and information from the Banks' offices in Switzerland, both Banks filed motions to vacate and quash the notices of levy. Id. The district court denied the Banks' motions and sua sponte entered an order directing the Banks to deposit into the Registry of the United States District Court for the Central District of California as an interpleader proceeding all assets in the possession of the BANKS that are the subject matter of this proceeding. Id. at 851. The Banks appealed and we reversed. Id. at 856. 6 We first held that, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a), 2 the post-judgment enforcement proceeding had to comply with California law. Id. at 853. California law requires personal service of a notice of levy on a deposit account to be made at the branch or office of the financial institution at which the account is actually carried. Id. Because none of the Estate's assets were held in deposit accounts located in California, the service of the notice of levy at the Banks' California offices was ineffective. Id. at 853-54. The district court should have therefore granted the Banks' motions to vacate and quash the levies. Id. at 854. 7 Second, we held that because Rule 69(a) essentially limits a district court's mechanism for enforcement of a money judgment to a writ of execution, the court had no authority to order the Banks to deposit the contested funds into the court registry. Id. at 856. In coming to this conclusion, we noted that although the Banks had previously been found to be agents and representatives of the Marcos Estate, the significance of this finding was outweighed by the fact that the Banks were not parties before the court in the case in which the finding was made. Id. at 855.