Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Tiger Mynarcik, Petitioner v. WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC
Supreme Court briefMay 23, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No.
In the
Supreme Court of the United States
TIGER MYNARCIK,
v.
Petitioner,
WV 23 JUMPSTART, LLC,
Respondent.
-----------------------------------------ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM THE CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
-----------------------------------------PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
------------------------------------------
Matthew G. Kleiner (SBN: 211842)
Counsel of Record
GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI, LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 230-7419
mkleiner@grsm.com
Counsel for Petitioner
GibsonMoore Appellate Services, LLC
206 East Cary Street ♦ Richmond, VA 23219
804-249-7770 ♦ www.gibsonmoore.net
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
There are three issues presented by this Petition:
1) Whether a judgment renewed through a sister
state’s money judgments act in a state where the
judgment debtor has no contacts whatsoever, should
be given Full Faith and Credit in other states
despite the fact that the original judgment has long
since expired.
2) Whether registration of foreign judgments
against non-California citizens who have no contacts
and no property or assets in California violates the
judgment debtor’s due process rights.
3) Whether the California Court of Appeal erred
in holding that a judgment creditor may use
California’s Sister-State Judgments Act and the Full
Faith and Credit Clause to register foreign
judgments against non-Californian citizens who
have no contacts and no property or assets in
California.
ii
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner is Tiger Mynarcik, an individual.
Respondent is WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC.
iii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 29.6 of United States Supreme
Court, the undersigned counsel of record certifies
that Petitioner Tiger Mynarcik is an individual, and
there is no parent company or other entity required
to be listed in this statement that has a financial
interest in the outcome of this case.
iv
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Petitioner advises that the following proceedings
are related:
WV Jumpstart, LLC v. Tiger Mynarcik, Case
No. A-20-826384-F. District Court Clark
County, Nevada, Dept. No. VIII, dismissed
without prejudice during the pendency of the
California Appeal.
WV Jumpstart, LLC v. Tiger Mynarcik, Jill
Mynarcik, Antiqua, LLC, and Tradewind
Companies, LLC, Case No. D-101-CV-202002540. State of New Mexico County of Santa
Fe First Judicial District Court. Order entered
September 17, 2021.
Tiger Mynarcik, Jill Mynarcik, Antiqua, LLC,
and Tradewind Companies, LLC v. WV
Jumpstart, LLC, Case No. A-1-CA-40004. New
Mexico Court of Appeals, matter submitted.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................. i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND
RELATED PROCEEDINGS ............................... ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.... iii
RELATED PROCEEDINGS .............................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................ v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................... x
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................ 1
OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1
JURISDICTION ......................................................... 1
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND
STATUTES INVOLVED ............................................ 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 4
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .............................. 9
A. The original plaintiffs obtained a
deficiency judgment against Mynarcik
in Nevada. ........................................................ 9
B. The original plaintiffs sought to and, in
fact, enforced the judgment in
California against Scott................................. 10
C. The
Original
Nevada
Judgment
expired............................................................ 11
D. Four years after the expiration of the
Original Nevada Judgment, the original
plaintiffs sold the California registered
judgment to Jumpstart.................................. 11
vi
E. Jumpstart applied to re-domesticate the
renewed California judgment in Nevada
and New Mexico, despite expiration of
the Original Nevada Judgment. ................... 12
F. Jumpstart moved the Sacramento
County Superior Court for an order
confirming Mynarcik waived his rights
to challenge renewal of the California
judgment; Mynarcik moved to challenge
the renewal of the California judgment
as void for lack of personal jurisdiction. ....... 13
G. Jumpstart appealed, raising an issue of
first impression in California. ....................... 14
H. Ongoing California court proceeding. ........... 15
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ...... 16
A. The California Court of Appeal’s
Opinion denies Mynarcik and other
similarly situated debtors, due process. ....... 17
B. The California Court of Appeal’s
Opinion conflicts with the purpose of
the Full Faith and Credit Clause.................. 21
C. The California judgment, based on the
expired Original Nevada Judgment,
should not be enforced under the Full
Faith and Credit Clause. ............................... 23
CONCLUSION ......................................................... 25
vii
APPENDIX:
Published Opinion
Court of Appeal of the State of California,
Third Appellate District
filed November 21, 2022 ..................................... 1a
Order Granting Summary Judgment
State of New Mexico
1st Judicial District Court - Santa Fe County
filed September 17, 2021 .................................. 18a
Minute Order on
Motion Confirming Defendant Mynarcik Waived
Right to Challenge Renewed Judgment
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
filed September 20, 2021 .................................. 21a
Minute Order on
Motion to Quash/Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento,
filed September 20, 2021 .................................. 30a
Minute Order on
Motion to Vacate Judgment
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento,
filed August 18, 2021 ........................................ 44a
viii
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash, Vacate and
Declare Purported Registration Null and Void,
District Court of Clark County, Nevada
filed April 12, 2021............................................ 46a
Order Denying Petition for Review
Supreme Court of California
filed February 22, 2023..................................... 57a
Tentative Ruling Continuing Motion
Confirming Defendant Mynarcik Waived
Right to Challenge Renewed Judgment
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
filed May 16, 2023 ............................................. 58a
Tentative Ruling Continuing
Motion to Vacate Judgment
Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
filed May 16, 2023 ............................................. 59a
Notice of Submission
Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico
filed May 2, 2023 ............................................... 60a
Notice of Appeal
State of New Mexico
1st Judicial District Court - Santa Fe County
filed September 21, 2021 .................................. 61a
ix
Application for and Renewal of Judgment
(California)
filed July 24, 2020 ............................................. 63a
Notice of Renewal of Judgment
(California)
filed July 24, 2020 ............................................. 65a
x
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Baker by Thomas v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
522 U.S. 222 (1998) ............................................. 21
Bank of Am. v. Jennett,
77 Cal.App.4th 104 (1999) ............................. 18-19
Bank One Texas v. Pollack,
24 Cal.App.4th 973 (1994) .................................. 19
Casey v. Hill,
79 Cal.App.5th 937 (2022) ............................ 19, 20
City of Oakland v. Desert Outdoor Advert., Inc.,
127 Nev. 533, 267 P.3d 48 (2011) ........................... 23
Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA & Ins. Servs., Inc.,
221 Cal.App.4th 831 (2013) .................................... 19
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v. Friedman,
935 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................... 15
Hanson v. Denckla,
357 U.S. 235 (1958) ............................................. 17
Leven v. Frey
123 Nev. 399 (2007) ............................................ 24
Milwaukee Cnty. v. M.E. White Co.,
296 U.S. 268 (1935) ............................................. 21
Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini,
596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010) ............................... 17
Williams v. State of N.C.,
325 U.S. 226 (1945) ............................................. 21
xi
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
444 U.S. 286 (1980) ........................................... 17, 18
WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik,
85 Cal.App.5th 596 (2022), review denied
(Feb. 22, 2023) ................................................... 1, 4, 6
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 2101(f)...................................................... 1
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 683.160 ................................. 23
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710 ............................... passim
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.10 ............................. 2, 10
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.15(b)(3) .................... 3, 11
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.20 ................................... 2
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.25 ............................. 4, 10
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.40 ................................... 7
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.40(a) ............................... 4
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 ................................... 18
Rules
U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 10 ................................................... 16
U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 29.6 ................................................. iii
Other Authorities
16 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports 1215 (1982) .............. 23
U.S. Const. amend. XIV ......................................... 1, 2
U.S. Const. Art. IV § 1 ...................................... passim
1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Tiger Mynarcik respectfully submits this petition
for a writ of certiorari to review the published
opinion of the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, Third Appellate District, Case Number
C095046, dated November 21, 2022.
OPINIONS BELOW
The published opinion of the California Court of
Appeal is reported at 85 Cal.App.5th 596, review
denied (Feb. 22, 2023).
JURISDICTION
The Opinion of the California Court of Appeal,
Third Appellate District was entered on November
21, 2022. Petition for review to the California
Supreme Court was denied on February 22, 2023.
This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
2101(f).
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND
STATUTES INVOLVED
Section 1 of the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment provides:
Section 1. All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to
2
any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Article IV, section 1 of the United States
Constitution provides:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in
each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other
State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which
such Acts, Records and Proceedings
shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1.
California’s Sister State Judgments Act includes
the following relevant provisions:
A judgment creditor may apply for the
entry of a judgment based on a sister
state judgment by filing an application
pursuant to Section 1710.20.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.10.
(b) The application shall be executed
under oath and shall include all of the
following:
***
(3) A statement of the amount
remaining unpaid under the
sister state judgment and, if
accrued interest on the sister
state judgment is to be included
in the California judgment, a
statement of the amount of
3
interest accrued on the sister
state judgment (computed at the
rate of interest applicable to the
judgment under the law of the
sister state), a statement of the
rate of interest applicable to the
judgment under the law of the
sister state, and a citation to the
law
of
the
sister
state
establishing the rate of interest.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.15, subd. (b)(3).
(a) Upon the filing of the application,
the clerk shall enter a judgment based
upon the application for the total of the
following amounts as shown therein:
(1) The amount remaining
unpaid under the sister state
judgment.
(2) The amount of interest
accrued on the sister state
judgment (computed at the rate
of interest applicable to the
judgment under the law of the
sister state).
(3) The amount of the fee for
filing the application for entry of
the sister state judgment.
(b) Entry shall be made in the same
manner as entry of an original
judgment of the court. From the time of
entry, interest shall accrue on the
judgment so entered at the rate of
4
interest applicable to
entered in this state.
a
judgment
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.25.
A judgment entered pursuant to this
chapter may be vacated on any ground
which would be a defense to an action
in this state on the sister state
judgment, including the ground that
the amount of interest accrued on the
sister state judgment and included in
the judgment entered pursuant to this
chapter is incorrect.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1710.40, subd. (a).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This case presents an opportunity to resolve an
abuse by judgment creditors who circumvent state
law by renewing or registering sister state money
judgments in states favorable to creditors in order to
revive expired judgments. This petition for certiorari
seeks review of the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, Third Appellate District’s published
opinion (“Opinion”) reversing the order of the
Sacramento County Superior Court finding that for a
judgment creditor to register a sister state judgment
in California, the judgment debtor must have
minimum contacts with California. WV 23
Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik, 85 Cal.App.5th 596
(2022), review denied (Feb. 22, 2023). The petition
raises the question whether California’s Sister State
Money Judgments Act may be used by judgment
creditors to circumvent unfavorable foreign state
laws by registering money judgments in California
regardless of whether the debtor has minimum
5
contacts with California, and then taking that
California judgment and seeking to enforce it in
other states despite the original judgment being
invalid. The California Court of Appeal’s decision to
allow such a process violates federal due process
rights and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
This action arises from Respondent’s attempt to
enforce a renewed California judgment in Nevada
and New Mexico. In 2010, a Nevada state court
entered judgment (“Original Nevada Judgment”)
against multiple judgment debtors, including
petitioner, Mynarcik who had no contacts with
California, and Mr. Scott, a California resident. App.
2a-3a. In 2010, the Original Nevada Judgment was
registered in California pursuant to California’s
Sister State Money Judgments Act. App. 3a.
In 2016, the Original Nevada Judgment expired
because the judgment creditors did not renew it.
App. 4a. After the Original Nevada Judgment
expired, the original plaintiffs/creditors assigned the
registered California judgment to WV 23 Jumpstart,
LLC (“Jumpstart”). App. 4a. In 2020, four years after
the expiration of the Original Nevada Judgment,
Jumpstart sought to renew the California judgment
despite the fact that: (1) the Original Nevada
Judgment had expired; (2) the California judgment
had already been enforced against the only
California judgment debtor; and (3) Mynarcik
admittedly had no assets or contacts in California.
App. 4a. Not being a resident or having any contacts
with California, Mynarcik did not appear in
California to contest the renewal. App. 4a.
Once Jumpstart renewed the California
judgment, it then sought to register and enforce that
6
judgment in other states where it believed Mynarcik
had assets including Nevada and New Mexico. App.
4a, 19a-20a. Mynarcik objected to this process in the
Nevada court, which issued a stay pending a
determination as to the validity of the California
judgment with respect to Mynarcik. App. 55a-56a;
WV 23 Jumpstart, LLC v. Mynarcik, 85 Cal.App.5th
596, 603 (2022). The Nevada court found that it was
unable to rule as to the validity and enforceability of
the renewed California judgment. App. 4a, 55a-56a.
The Nevada court noted that it required a
declaration from an appropriate California court,
declaring whether the renewed California judgment
is valid and enforceable in California. App. 4a, 55a56a. The Nevada court found:
The registration of the renewed
California Judgment in Nevada will
then be deemed valid and enforceable in
Nevada if a California court concludes
or declares either one of the following:
A. Mynarcik waived his right, under
California law, to challenge the
renewed California Judgment; or
B. An amendment to the renewed
California Judgment would relate back
to the California Judgment’s renewal
date.
App. 4a, 55a.
As a result, Jumpstart filed an action in
California along with a Motion for Order Confirming
Mynarcik waived his Right to Challenge the
Renewed Judgment or, in the alternative, for a Nunc
Pro Tunc Order Amending the Renewed Judgment.
7
App. 5a. Mynarcik filed a Motion to Vacate the
Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
1710.40. App. 5a. The Sacramento County Superior
Court denied both of these motions as moot and
instead granted Mynarcik’s Motion for Order
Quashing, Dismissing and Declaring Null and Void
the Judgment domesticated by judgment creditor in
November 2010 due to California’s lack of personal
jurisdiction over Mynarcik. App. 5a, 29a, 43a, 45a.
The Sacramento County Superior Court ruled as
follows:
Without the constitutionally required
“minimum contacts” with California,
this Court did not possess personal
jurisdiction over Mr. Mynarcik in 2010
and thus, even though the judgment
creditors may have served on Mr.
Mynarcik in Nevada their 2010
application to register the Nevada
judgment in California, Mr. Mynarcik
was under no legal obligation to
challenge or otherwise respond to the
2010 domestication proceedings in
California due to this state’s lack of
personal jurisdiction over him.
App. 5a, 40a. As to Jumpstart’s attempt to renew the
California judgment, the Sacramento County
Superior Court similarly concluded:
For these same reasons, Mr. Mynarcik
was likewise under no legal obligation
to challenge or respond to Jumpstart’s
more recent 2020 application to renew
the California judgment regardless of
the fact that it was mailed to Mr.
8
Mynarcik’s residence in Nevada and/or
that the Nevada judgment had expired
in 2016. California’s lack of personal
jurisdiction
over
Mr.
Mynarcik
rendered
the
California
renewal
proceedings “a nullity” at least as to Mr.
Mynarcik.
App. 5a, 41a.
Jumpstart appealed this decision. The California
Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, answered
a narrow question in its published opinion:
Must a California court have personal
jurisdiction over a judgment debtor
before a court clerk may register a
sister-state judgment in California? We
conclude that the answer is no.
App. 6a.
The California Court of Appeal did not decide
whether the renewed California judgment was valid
or enforceable, that Mynarcik waived any right to
challenge the renewed California judgment, or
whether Jumpstart properly followed the statutory
requirements for renewing the California judgment.
The Opinion only decided that a California court
does not need to have personal jurisdiction over
Mynarcik before renewing an expired judgment from
another state through California’s Sister State
Money Judgments Act. App. 4a-16a.
In New Mexico, Jumpstart similarly sought to
enforce the renewed California judgment, however,
the New Mexico District Court granted Mynarcik’s,
and other named defendants’, motion for summary
judgment finding that the “full faith and credit
9
clause does not allow for the enforcement of the
registered California Judgment in New Mexico.”
App. 19a. Moreover, the New Mexico court found
“Plaintiff’s effort to register the expired Nevada
Judgment (as registered by the Clerk of the
California Court) here in New Mexico is null and
void.” App. 19a. Jumpstart appealed this
determination and the matter has been fully briefed
in the New Mexico Court of Appeals. App. 60a-61a.
The California Court of Appeal erred in finding
that a judgment debtor need not have minimum
contacts with the state in order to register a
judgment, and further erred in finding that renewal
of an expired, foreign judgment complied with the
Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States
Constitution. Mynarcik now seeks review of the
Court of Appeal’s Opinion.
This Court should grant Mynarcik’s petition for
certiorari and find the California Court of Appeal
erred in reversing the trial court’s order and denying
judgment creditors due process as well as violating
the spirit of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This
matter provides the Court with an opportunity to
clarify a judgment debtor’s due process rights and
application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause
across the United States to provide for consistent
and uniform application.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The original plaintiffs obtained a deficiency
judgment against Mynarcik in Nevada.
Mynarcik, along with two other individuals,
James Scott and Brock Metzka, and Pahrump 161,
LLC, guaranteed a loan of $1.8 million from the
10
original plaintiffs, Galipeau Associates, Inc., and
A.K. Partners, LLC. App. 3a. Pahrump was to use
the money to develop residential real estate in
Nevada. App. 3a. Pahrump defaulted on the loan.
App. 2a-3a.
The original plaintiffs filed suit in Clark County,
Nevada, seeking a deficiency judgment against
defendants Pahrump, Mynarcik, Scott, and Metzka.
App. 2a-3a. Following a bench trial, in May 2010, the
Nevada District Court entered a judgment for
$1,346,474.25 against Pahrump and the three
guarantors. App. 3a. The judgment was amended to
include attorney fees, costs, and accrued interest,
which increased the judgment to $1,584.893.71. App.
3a.
B. The original plaintiffs sought to and, in fact,
enforced the judgment in California against
Scott.
In November 2010, seeking to have the judgment
domesticated in California to be enforced against
Scott, the original plaintiffs applied for entry of
judgment on a sister-state judgment in the
Sacramento County Superior Court pursuant to
California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act, Code
of Civil Procedure section 1710.10 et seq. App. 3a.
Mynarcik, a Nevada resident with no business and
no assets in California, did not challenge the original
plaintiffs’ efforts to domesticate the judgment in
California. App. 3a. Pursuant to section 1710.25 of
California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act, the
Sacramento County Superior Court clerk entered the
amended $1.58 million registered judgment in favor
of the original plaintiffs. App. 3a.
11
C. The Original Nevada Judgment expired.
The original plaintiffs did not renew the Original
Nevada Judgment and, in 2016, the Original Nevada
Judgment’s six-year enforcement period expired by
statute and the judgment lapsed. App. 4a.
D. Four years after the expiration of the
Original Nevada Judgment, the original
plaintiffs sold the California registered
judgment to Jumpstart.
In May 2020, the original plaintiffs sold the
California registered judgment to Jumpstart. App.
4a. In July 2020, a few months before the California
registered judgment was set to expire, Jumpstart
applied to renew the California registered judgment
in Sacramento County Superior Court. App. 4a.
Jumpstart requested over a $1,000,000.00 more in
interest than set forth in the Original Nevada
Judgment. The modified balance of the California
judgment was $2,611,083.08. App. 4a. Jumpstart
failed to comply with California’s Sister State Money
Judgments Act by failing to acknowledge partial
satisfaction of approximately $500,000.00, which the
original plaintiffs recovered from defendants Scott
and Metzka. App. 22a; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
1710.15, subd. (b)(3) (requiring that the entry of a
sister-state judgment contain “a statement of the
amount remaining unpaid under the sister state
judgment”). Mynarcik did not respond or otherwise
challenge renewal of the registered judgment in
California, a state with which he does not live, has
no contacts, and has no assets. App. 4a.
12
E. Jumpstart applied to re-domesticate the
renewed California judgment in Nevada
and New Mexico, despite expiration of the
Original Nevada Judgment.
Jumpstart then applied in Nevada and New
Mexico state courts to domesticate the renewed
California judgment. App. 4a, 19a-20a. In both
states, Mynarcik moved to “quash the old and
expired transplanted Nevada judgment as null and
void.” App. 4a, 19a-20a. Mynarcik also challenged
the validity of the California judgment. App. 4a.
On April 12, 2021, the Nevada court issued a
stay, pending a determination of the validity of the
California registered judgment. App. 4a, 56a.
The registration of the renewed
California Judgment in Nevada will
then be deemed valid and enforceable in
Nevada if a California court concludes
or declares either one of the following:
[¶] A. Mynarcik waived his right, under
California law, to challenge the
renewed California Judgment; or [¶] B.
An amendment to the renewed
California Judgment would relate back
to the California Judgment’s renewal
date.
App. 4a, 55a.
Jumpstart similarly sought to enforce the
renewed California judgment in New Mexico. App.
18a. On September 17, 2021, the New Mexico court
granted Mynarcik’s motion for summary judgment
concluding that the registration of the Original
Nevada Judgment in California was not entitled to
13
Full Faith and Credit because, in part, it was
ministerial in nature and “the Nevada judgment had
expired and could not itself be registered in New
Mexico.” App. 19a.
F. Jumpstart moved the Sacramento County
Superior Court for an order confirming
Mynarcik waived his rights to challenge
renewal of the California judgment;
Mynarcik moved to challenge the renewal of
the California judgment as void for lack of
personal jurisdiction.
In response to the Nevada court’s direction,
Jumpstart moved for an order confirming that
Mynarcik had forfeited his right to challenge the
renewed judgment or, in the alternative, a nunc pro
tunc order amending the renewed judgment in the
Sacramento County Superior Court. App. 5a.
Mynarcik opposed Jumpstart’s motion, filed his own
motion to quash the California judgment for lack of
personal jurisdiction, as well as a motion to vacate
the California judgment. App. 5a.
The trial court granted Mynarcik’s motion to
quash the California judgment and denied
Jumpstart’s motion as moot. App. 5a-6a, 29a, 43a,
44a-45a. In doing so, it reasoned that “[w]ithout the
constitutionally required ‘minimum contacts’ with
California, [the Sacramento Superior Court] did not
possess personal jurisdiction over Mr. Mynarcik in
2010 and thus, even though the judgment creditors
may have served on Mr. Mynarcik in Nevada their
2010 application to register the Nevada judgment in
California, Mr. Mynarcik was under no legal
obligation to challenge or otherwise respond to the
2010 domestication proceedings in California due to
14
this state’s lack of personal jurisdiction over him.”
App. 5a, 40a.
Mr. Mynarcik was likewise under no
legal obligation to challenge or respond
to Jumpstart’s more recent 2020
application to renew the California
judgment regardless of the fact that it
was mailed to Mr. Mynarcik’s residence
in Nevada and/or that the Nevada
judgment had expired in 2016.
California’s lack of personal jurisdiction
over Mr. Mynarcik rendered the
California renewal proceedings ‘a
nullity’ at least as to Mr. Mynarcik. [¶] .
. . [¶] Thus, to the extent the 2010
judgment domesticated in California
and renewed in 2020 purports to be a
judgment against Mr. Mynarcik[,] who
has
no
demonstrable
‘minimum
contacts’ with the State of California,
the judgment must be and hereby is
vacated due to this Court’s lack of
personal
jurisdiction
over
Mr.
Mynarcik.
App. 5a, 41a.
G. Jumpstart appealed, raising an issue of first
impression in California.
The California Court of Appeal found that this
was an issue of first impression stating this a “novel
question of law….” App. 6a. The California Court of
Appeal, relying on federal authority, determined the
trial court erred in concluding that where a
judgment creditor seeks to register a sister-state
judgment in California, the judgment debtor must
15
have “minimum contacts” with California. App. 14a.
The California Court of Appeal held:
The original judgment obtained by
plaintiffs was valid and enforceable in
Nevada when it was registered in
California. The Nevada court had
jurisdiction over Mynarcik. We see no
reason, then, why this validly obtained
judgment could not be registered in
California simply because one or more
debtors lack minimum contacts with
this state. The Act does not require it;
indeed, its text and application indicate
that it was not the Legislature’s intent
to impose such a constraint. Moreover,
the ministerial act of registration does
not “alter[ ] a debtor’s substantive
rights such that a due process right is
triggered.”
App. 16a, quoting Fidelity National Financial, Inc. v.
Friedman 935 F.3d 696, 702 (9th Cir. 2019).
Mynarcik filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court, which was summarily
denied. App. 57a.
H. Ongoing California court proceeding.
After issuance of the remittitur, the Sacramento
County Superior Court re-set for hearing
Jumpstart’s motion confirming waiver of Mynarcik’s
right to challenge the renewed judgment in
California, and Mynarcik’s motion to vacate the
judgment, which the court previously denied as
moot. App. 58a-59a. A hearing is set for June 6,
16
2023. App. 58a-59a. The primary issues that remain
to be decided are:
Whether the renewed California judgment
should be vacated because it was based on
an expired Nevada judgment;
Whether the renewed California judgment
should be vacated because the amount
stated in the renewed California judgment
is incorrect; and
Whether the renewed California judgment
should be vacated and Jumpstart’s waiver
motion denied because Jumpstart failed to
properly serve Mynarcik with the renewed
California judgment.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Grounds for granting a petition for writ of
certiorari include when “a state court … has decided
an important question of federal law that … should
be, settled by this Court, or has decided an
important federal question in a way that conflicts
with relevant decisions of this Court.” U.S. Sup. Ct.
R. 10. Here, the California Court of Appeal issued an
opinion finding that a judgment creditor may reregister a domesticated California judgment even
though the Original Nevada Judgment has expired,
and even though California admittedly has no
personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor,
Mynarcik. App. 14a-16a. Despite the California
Court of Appeal’s finding to the contrary, a lack of
minimum contacts violates the judgment debtor’s
fundamental right to due process. The ministerial
act of renewing a judgment pursuant to California’s
Sister State Money Judgments Act should not
17
supplant the fundamental rights of personal
jurisdiction over the judgment debtor, especially
where, as here, the original judgment is no longer
valid and the judgment creditor seeks to enforce the
renewed judgment as if it was the original judgment.
Additionally, by exercising personal jurisdiction
over a judgment debtor with no minimum contacts,
California has muddied the purpose of the Full Faith
and Credit Clause of the Constitution by allowing
judgment creditors to avoid unfavorable state laws.
This violates the policy behind the Full Faith and
Credit Clause.
A. The California Court of Appeal’s Opinion
denies Mynarcik and other similarly
situated debtors, due process.
The California Court of Appeal’s Opinion ignores
due process and allows judgment creditors to abuse
sister state judgment acts. “[D]ue process requires a
constitutionally sufficient relationship among the
defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Office
Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini 596 F.3d 696, 700 (9th Cir.
2010) (citation omitted). Due process applies “[e]ven
if the defendant would suffer minimal or no
inconvenience from being forced to litigate before the
tribunals of another State; even if the forum State
has a strong interest in applying its law to the
controversy; even if the forum State is the most
convenient location for litigation, the Due Process
Clause, acting as an instrument of interstate
federalism, may sometimes act to divest the State of
its power to render a valid judgment.” Hanson v.
Denckla 357 U.S. 235, 251 (1958); World-Wide
Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 444 U.S. 286, 294
(1980).
18
California’s long arm statute is broad and
California courts may exercise jurisdiction over
parties “on any basis not inconsistent with the
Constitution of this state or of the United States.”
Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10. A state may only
exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant who
has minimum contacts with the state. World-Wide
Volkswagen, supra, 444 U.S. at 292-93. To establish
minimum contacts, the courts may consider:
The extent to which the lawsuit relates to
defendant’s activities or contacts with the
state;
The availability of evidence, and the location
of witnesses;
The availability of an alternative forum in
which the claim could be litigated;
The relative costs and burdens to the litigants
of bringing or defending the action in
California rather than elsewhere; and
Any state policy in providing a forum for this
particular litigation.
As the Sacramento County Superior Court correctly
concluded, none of these factors are satisfied here
because Mynarcik has no contacts whatsoever with
California. App. 42a.
California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act
was enacted in response to the Full Faith and Credit
Clause, and “to provide economical and expeditious
registration procedures for enforcing sister state
money judgments in California.” Bank of Am. v.
Jennett, 77 Cal.App.4th 104, 114 (1999). The Sister
State Money Judgments Act simplified the procedure
19
for registration of out-of-state judgments for the
benefit of judgment creditors, “yet, at the same time,
remain fair to the judgment debtor by affording him
the opportunity to assert any defense that he could
assert under the traditional procedure.” App. 8a
quoting Casey v. Hill 79 Cal.App.5th 937, 960.
The California Court of Appeal avoids due
process by finding that California’s Sister State
Money Judgments Act is a “ministerial” process
“requiring no judicial action, nor any pleadings or
appearances by the parties.” App. 10a. The court of
appeal further erred in finding that the Original
Nevada Judgment proceeding was sufficient to
satisfy due process and that personal jurisdiction
was not a concern because the registration of a
judgment “does not alter the judgment” and “merely
enables a creditor to collect on a preexisting
judgment”, “so long as the originating state had
jurisdiction over the parties, the judgment was
authorized, and the litigants were afforded due
process, there is no basis to read an additional
jurisdictional requirement into the Act based upon
the ministerial act of registration.” App. 14a.
The court of appeal noted, California’s Sister
State Money Judgments Act provides a method for
enforcing a foreign judgment. App. 10a. “[T]he act
simply permits the registration of a sister state
judgment so it may be enforced against property
located in this state.” Bank One Texas v. Pollack, 24
Cal.App.4th 973, 979 (1994); and see Conseco Mktg.,
LLC v. IFA & Ins. Servs., Inc., 221 Cal.App.4th 831,
838 (2013). While the process of registering a sisterstate judgment is a simplified and expedited
procedure, it should not be an exception to the
fundamental right of due process of having some
20
connection with the forum where the judgment is
sought to be registered. To do so otherwise, forces
non-resident judgment debtors with no assets or
contacts with California to spend resources and time
to appear in California and challenge that
registration. It effectively removes personal
jurisdiction as a requirement even though, personal
jurisdiction is absolutely a defense that could be
asserted under the traditional procedure. App. 8a
quoting Casey, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at 960.
When the Original Nevada Judgment was
registered the first time in California in 2010, the
original judgment creditors sought to and did enforce
the judgment against the only judgment debtor that
was a California resident, Mr. Scott. App. 3a, 22a.
Jumpstart cannot now collect on the judgment in
California because no remaining judgment debtor is
a California resident with assets or contacts in
California. Despite this fact, Jumpstart sought to
renew the judgment in 2020, four years after the
Original Nevada Judgment expired. App. 2a.
Allowing Jumpstart to renew the California
judgment now does not serve the intent underlying
California’s Sister State Money Judgments Act or
the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which is to enforce
a judgment in California. App. 10a, In other words,
Jumpstart’s renewal of the California judgment has
no impact on any person or asset in California, and
was merely used as a vehicle to revive a stale
Nevada judgment, and is a violation of due process.
21
B. The California Court of Appeal’s Opinion
conflicts with the purpose of the Full Faith
and Credit Clause.
The California Court of Appeal’s Opinion conflicts
with the purpose and intent of the Full Faith and
Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.
Article IV, section 1 of the United States
Constitution provides that “Full Faith and Credit
shall be given in each State to the public Acts,
Records and judicial Proceedings of every other
State.” The purpose of the Full Faith and Credit
Clause is to make the individual states an “integral
parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy
upon a just obligation might be demanded as of
right, irrespective of the state of its origin.”
Milwaukee Cnty. v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268,
277 (1935). “[T]he judgment of a state court should
have the same credit, validity, and effect in every
other court in the United States, which it had in the
state where it was pronounced.” Williams v. State of
N.C., 325 U.S. 226, 228 (1945) (internal citation
omitted). States must recognize one another’s final
judgments “rendered by a court with adjudicatory
authority over the subject matter and persons
governed by the judgment….” Baker by Thomas v.
Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 223 (1998). This
includes recognition of money judgments. Id. at 234.
Here, the parties do not dispute that the Original
Nevada Judgment was properly registered in
California in 2010 and enforced against Mr. Scott;
the one judgment debtor over which California had
personal jurisdiction. App. 3a. What is at issue is
that the Original Nevada Judgment expired by
operation of law in 2016 and is no longer enforceable.
App. 4a. Neither the original plaintiffs nor
22
Jumpstart may seek to enforce the expired Original
Nevada Judgment in Nevada or any other state. In
order to circumvent and avoid the consequences of
the expired Original Nevada Judgment, Jumpstart
is attempting to use California’s Sister State Money
Judgments Act and the Full Faith and Credit Clause
to renew the expired Original Nevada Judgment,
then register it in other states including Nevada.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause was not designed
to breathe new life into stale state judgments by
allowing them to be registered in sister-states and
then enforced back into the original state as a valid
and enforceable sister-state judgment.
This action conflicts with the purpose of the Full
Faith and Credit Clause because it ignores the fact
that the Original Nevada Judgment has expired by
operation of law and is void and unenforceable in
Nevada. App. 3a. The California Court of Appeal is,
by reversing the trial court’s order, allowing
Jumpstart to avoid Nevada law, by renewing an
invalid judgment in California in violation of the
Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Jumpstart, and other similarly situated judgment
creditors, should not be able to manipulate the Full
Faith and Credit Clause to avoid unfavorable state
law as they are doing here. What is to stop judgment
creditors from reviving expired judgments from any
state by simply registering them in a sister state,
where the debtor has no contacts or resources to
challenge the registration, then using the guise of
the Full Faith and Credit Clause to circumvent
unfavorable law and renew expired judgments? It is
a process similar to forum shopping, which the law
abhors.
23
C. The California judgment, based on the
expired Original Nevada Judgment, should
not be enforced under the Full Faith and
Credit Clause.
Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the
United States Constitution, a final judgment entered
in a sister state must be respected by the courts of
this state. City of Oakland v. Desert Outdoor Advert.,
Inc., 127 Nev. 533, 537, 267 P.3d 48, 50 (2011). By
contrast, an editor’s note to Code of Civil Procedure
section 683.160 clarifies that the entry and filing of a
judgment renewal is a ministerial act, not a judicial
one.1 16 Cal.L.Rev.Comm. Reports 1215 (1982).
The California judgment is not an original, final
judgment entered by a California Court. 63a-64a. It
is a sister state judgment domesticated in California.
63a-64a. It is entered not by judicial action, like a
final judgment, but by the ministerial act of the
Sacramento County Superior Court’s clerk. App. 8a.
This is a critical difference since only final
judgments entered in California are entitled to full
faith in credit in other states. There is no legal
support for Jumpstart’s contention that a sisterstate judgment based on a stale judgment, which is
entered as a matter of course by ministerial act, is
entitled to the protection and portability of the Full
Faith and Credit Clause of the United States
Constitution in the same way as a final judgment
entered by judicial action.
Nevada, the state of rendition of the original
judgment, requires that judgments be renewed
As stated above, the New Mexico Court concluded that the
ministerial registration of the Original Nevada Judgment in
California was not entitled to full faith and credit. App. 19a-20a.
1
24
within six years or be deemed void. Leven v. Frey
(2007) 123 Nev. 399, 409-10. The original judgment
creditors failed to renew the Original Nevada
Judgment. App. 4a. Mynarcik should be afforded the
certainty of the expiration of that judgment. If not,
and the renewed California judgment is treated the
same as an Original Nevada Judgment entitled to
full faith and credit and given the same portability
as an original judgment, then this would generate a
perverse result, allowing Jumpstart to revive the
expired Nevada judgment by “parking” its judgment
in California, rendering the Nevada statute of
limitations meaningless. This would significantly
impair Mynarcik’s substantive rights and fly
squarely in the face of the law and public policy of
Nevada, where Mynarcik has resided for decades.
For similar reasons, treating the renewed
California judgment as the same as an original
judgment, regardless of the expiration of the true
Original Nevada Judgment, would all but guarantee
that Mynarcik would be deprived of valid defenses to
Jumpstart’s actions in other states. For example,
Jumpstart has already tried to use the California
judgment as an original judgment and tried to
domesticate it in New Mexico. App. 18a-20a.
Jumpstart cannot domesticate the Original Nevada
Judgment in New Mexico because, as decided by the
New Mexico court, it is void in Nevada, the state of
rendition. App. 19a-20a. If Jumpstart is able to turn
the California ministerial sister-state judgment into
an original judgment subject to full faith and credit,
the courts of every other state will wrongfully look to
California as the state of rendition when, in fact, the
judgment was originally rendered in Nevada.
Allowing the California judgment to act as the
25
original judgment, deprives Mynarcik, and other
similarly situated judgment debtors of any defense
applicable to the original judgment.
The interest of judgment creditors is protected by
the registration of sister state judgments, which
allows them to recover money from judgment debtors
across state lines. The interest of the judgment
debtors is protected by the time limits for renewal,
which prevents creditors from sitting on their rights.
Enforcing the renewed California judgment and
treating it as an original judgment, would destroy
the judgment debtor’s protections by allowing
creditors to jump from state to state, reviving stale
judgments at will.
This Court can make it clear that a sister state
judgment, like the California renewed judgment, is
not a final judgment entered in the state as an
affirmative judicial act after litigation on the merits
and therefore, should not be seen by other states as
entitled to full faith in credit as original judgments.
Accordingly, the Court should declare that the sister
state judgment is a ministerial instrument not
entitled to the full faith and credit of the U.S.
Constitution in sister states in order to avoid the
perverse results discussed above.
CONCLUSION
The Sacramento County Superior Court is
prepped to enter judgment based on the published
Opinion of the Court of Appeal of the State of
California, which will allow Jumpstart to register
the renewed California judgment in Nevada, and
any other state, thereby avoiding application of
Nevada law. That course of action threatens to cause
harm to Mynarcik and other similarly situated
26
debtors who will be subjected to either expired or
otherwise defunct judgments. Allowing Jumpstart to
avoid Nevada state law by acting through California,
or any other state, threatens due process and
violates the spirit of the Full Faith and Credit
Clause of the United States Constitution. For these
reasons, this Court should grant Mynarcik’s petition
for certiorari.
May 23, 2023
By:
/s/ Matthew G. Kleiner
Matthew G. Kleiner (SBN: 211842)
Counsel of Record
GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI, LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 2000
San Diego, California 92101
(619) 230-7419
mkleiner@grsm.com
Counsel for Petitioner
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.