Quan v. United States

Background

The United States and To Ha Quan stipulated to a judgment in the government’s favor, entered on October 16, 2002. The judgment totaled $198,497.66, with interest on the unpaid balance accruing from the judgment date at a 7.0% legal rate, calculated daily and compounded annually, plus costs.

The clerk issued an abstract of judgment in February 2003. The government recorded that abstract in San Francisco County to create a judgment lien. In September 2022, the court granted the government’s request to renew that judgment lien. The government then applied to record an abstract of judgment in Alameda County.

The parties’ arguments

Quan objected to the proposed abstract. He argued that the underlying judgment had expired because it had not been renewed. Relying on California Code of Civil Procedure sections 683.020 and 683.130, Quan asserted that a money judgment generally expires ten years after entry unless it is renewed before expiration. He also argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 required the court to apply California law because no federal statute addressed renewal of the underlying judgment.

The government agreed that the original judgment was entered in October 2002 but argued that federal law controlled. It maintained that the judgment remains effective indefinitely or until satisfied and that no authority barred recording the judgment in Alameda County for the first time.

Court’s analysis

The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a cited case addressing the same issue. Rule 69(a)(1) generally requires federal enforcement of a money judgment to follow the procedures of the state where the court is located, but the rule gives priority to an applicable federal statute.

The Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990 provides the exclusive civil procedures for the United States to recover a judgment on a debt, except where another federal law conflicts. It also preempts state law to the extent the state law is inconsistent with the federal law. The court concluded that California’s ten-year limit on enforcing a judgment is inconsistent with the federal statute because the federal statute provides no time limit for collecting debts by writ of execution and is intended to create a comprehensive and efficient system for collecting debts owed to the United States.

Ruling

The court found the government’s proposed abstract of judgment proper and directed the clerk to issue the abstract listed at Docket No. 51. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton therefore rejected Quan’s objection to the proposed abstract.