Joseph Padgett v. Brian Loventhal ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 15 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSEPH PADGETT,                                 No.    20-15246
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO, P.C.,
    Movant-Appellee,
    A. CURTIS WRIGHT,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    BRIAN LOVENTHAL,
    Defendant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 13, 2022**
    San Francisco, California
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Before: SILER,*** W. FLETCHER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Joseph Padgett appeals from the district court’s post-judgment order declining
    to compel the clerk of court to enter a renewed judgment in the amount Padgett
    requested. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . See Armstrong v.
    Schwarzenegger, 
    622 F.3d 1058
    , 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the parties are
    familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We vacate the district court’s
    order and remand with instructions to enter the renewed judgment.
    The procedure for executing a judgment entered by a federal court “must
    accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located, [unless] a federal
    statute governs.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Under California law, the clerk’s entry of a
    renewed judgment “is an automatic, ministerial act.” Goldman v. Simpson, 
    72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 729
    , 733 (Ct. App. 2008). Section 683.150 of the California Code of Civil
    Procedure provides that “[u]pon the filing of the application, the court clerk shall
    enter the renewal of the judgment in the court records.” (emphasis added). And the
    commentary to Section 683.150 states that “Section 683.150 requires that the court
    clerk enter the renewal of the judgment based on the application.” (emphasis added);
    see also Altizer v. Highsmith, 
    265 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832
    , 836 (Ct. App. 2020) (quoting
    this language favorably when describing the clerk’s role). Therefore, the clerk must
    ***
    The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    2
    enter the renewed judgment. After the clerk does so, Wright may move to vacate the
    judgment if Wright believes that the amount of the renewed judgment is incorrect.
    Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 683.170(a). We express no opinion regarding the correct
    judgment amount.
    We decline to address when the interest to which Padgett is entitled began to
    accrue because this issue was “not passed upon below.” Friedman v. AARP, Inc.,
    
    855 F.3d 1047
    , 1057 (9th Cir. 2017).
    VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to enter the renewed
    judgment.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-15246

Filed Date: 4/15/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/15/2022