Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hardin v. Dadlani

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 7, 2017

BRIGGITTA HARDIN, Plaintiff,
v.
MICK DADLANI, Defendant,
v.
NATIONAL SECURITIES CORPORATION, Garnishee.

          ORDER

          The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mick Dadlani's Motion to Quash Writ of Garnishment and for Award of Attorney Fees and Costs. Dkt. # 5. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Dadlani's motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On January 29, 2016, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a $687, 000 judgment in favor of Plaintiff Briggitta Hardin, $676, 000 of which was against Dadlani. Hardin v. Dadlani, C11-2052-RBW, Dkt. # 176 (D.C. Jan. 29, 2016).

         On May 16, 2016, Hardin registered the judgment in this Court as a foreign judgment to be enforced against Dadlani. Hardin v. Dadlani, C16-mc-66, Dkt. # 1 (W.D. Wash. May 16, 2016).

         On July 22, 2016, Hardin filed an application for writ of garnishment to impose a lien on Dadlani's earnings from National Securities Corporation, an entity located in Seattle. Dkt. # 1. The Court granted Hardin's request and entered an order garnishing Dadlani's earnings in the amount of $676, 046.[1] Dkt. ## 2-3.

         Dadlani now moves to quash the writ of garnishment on the basis that Hardin did not follow the proper procedure for filing a foreign judgment in this Court. Dkt. # 5. Hardin opposes the motion. Dkt. # 13.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Dadlani contends that the writ of garnishment must be quashed because Hardin failed to register the foreign judgment in accordance with Washington's Uniform Enforcement of Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), RCW 6.36.010, et seq. Under the UEFJA, a plaintiff registering a foreign judgment must comply with certain procedural requirements, which include (1) submitting an affidavit that contains identifying information about the judgment debtor and (2) notifying the judgment debtor by mail that the foreign judgment was filed. RCW 6.36.035.

         But these state registration requirements are not required in federal court when a plaintiff complies with the separate registration process set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 1963.

         The federal registration statute provides, in relevant part:

A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any . . . district court . . . may be registered by filing a certified copy of the judgment in any other district . . . when the judgment has become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown. Such a judgment entered in favor of the United States may be so registered any time after judgment is entered. A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like manner. . . . The procedure prescribed under this section is in addition to other procedures provided by law for the enforcement of judgments.

28 U.S.C. ยง 1963. Dadlani emphasizes the last sentence to contend that this statute necessarily exists in tandem with state laws governing the registration of foreign judgments. That sentence, however, applies ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.