Court Opinion

ID: 9839707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 20:01:05.521571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:24.087548
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11728    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 09/13/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-11728
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF THE CARIBBEAN,
       a Cayman Islands company,
                                                               Plaintiﬀ,
       AMERICAN ASSOCIATED GROUP, LTD.,
       f.k.a. American University of The Caribbean
       (AUC-Cayman #1),
                                  Plaintiﬀ-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
       versus
       HENRY TIEN,

                               Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant,
USCA11 Case: 22-11728      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 09/13/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11728

       MING TIEN,

                                                                 Defendant.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-21928-WPD
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Henry Tien, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s or-
       der granting American Associated Group’s three different motions:
       a motion to dismiss Tien’s counterclaim, a motion to strike his af-
       firmative defense, and motion to renew a prior judgment that AAG
       had obtained against him. Tien asserts that the court erred in
       granting AAG’s motions and in entering judgment for AAG be-
       cause he is unable to pay the judgments against him and has not
       paid any money to AAG in the last five years. After careful review,
       we affirm.
              Mr. Tien owes AAG money; in 2016, the Southern District
       of Florida ordered him to pay $186,863 plus interest in a civil fraud
       judgment. Trouble is, Tien doesn’t have a cent to his name. Even
       so, in 2021, AAG moved to renew the 2016 judgment; Tien
USCA11 Case: 22-11728      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 09/13/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-11728                Opinion of the Court                          3

       mounted a counterclaim and affirmative defense in response, and
       AAG successfully quashed both. We review the issues de novo. See
       Hopper v. Solvay Pharms., Inc., 588 F.3d 1318, 1324 (11th Cir. 2009)
               Florida common law recognizes a cause of action empower-
       ing a judgment creditor to renew a judgment in its favor—the pur-
       pose being to allow a creditor to re-start the statute of limitations
       by bringing a new action to secure satisfaction. Corzo Trucking
       Corp. v. West, 61 So.3d 1285, 1288 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). The
       Florida Supreme Court has held that a judgment “constitutes a
       cause of action upon which a new and independent action may be
       based.” Crane v. Nuta, 26 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 1946). Tien cannot
       resist the renewed judgment by relitigating the merits of the origi-
       nal cause of action. See Klee v. Cola, 401 So.2d 871, 872 (Fla. Dist.
       Ct. App. 1981) (“The merits of an original cause of action may not
       be re-litigated in an action on a judgment.”) Rather, he can resist
       it only on procedural grounds “which have arisen since the rendi-
       tion of the judgment, such as payment, release, accord and satisfac-
       tion, or the statute of limitations.” Corzo Trucking, 61 So.3d at 1288
       (quotation omitted). None of those grounds applies here.
              Tien’s primary argument is that he doesn’t have the money
       to pay for the judgments against him, but he fails to cite any au-
       thority suggesting that inability to pay is a valid ground for resisting
       an action to renew and collect on those judgments. It may well be
       that Tien can’t pay, but AAG’s judgment is nonetheless valid and
       outstanding—and it therefore meets the requirements for a re-
       newal-of-judgment action under Florida law. See Crane, 26 So.2d at
USCA11 Case: 22-11728      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 09/13/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-11728

       671. His secondary arguments all attack the merits or the pre-judg-
       ment procedures from the original action. These are beyond the
       scope of a renewal matter. See Klee, 401 So.2d at 872. Thus, the
       district court did not err in dismissing Tien’s counterclaim, striking
       his affirmative defense, and entering renewed judgment for AAG.
             AFFIRMED.