Page 1
C.A. Declares Federal-Court Judgment Can’t Be Registered as That of ‘Sister State’
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming was improperly entered by the Los Angeles Superior Court, Div. Two of the Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday.
The Sister State Money Judgments Act (“SSMJA”), codified at Code of Civil Procedure §1710.10 et seq., cannot apply to a judgment of a federal court, Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst wrote in an unpublished opinion, pointing to §1710.10 (c) which says:
“ ‘Sister state judgment’ means that part of any judgment, decree, or order of a court of a state of the United States, other than California, which requires the payment of money.…”
Reconsideration Sought
Judgment debtor Gary Shirinyan moved for an order vacating entry of the federal judgment here; Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lia Martin denied the motion in July 2022; Shirinyan a month later moved for reconsideration; there was what Ashmann-Gerst termed “an unexplained two-year delay” before Shirinyan filed a supplemental brief; in February 2024, Martin denied reconsideration.
Ashmann-Gerst wrote:
“Here, we are presented with a judgment creditor’s attempt to enforce a federal judgment under the SSMJA. Because that law does not apply to federal actions…, we readily conclude that the entry of judgment must be vacated. By virtue of being a federal judgment, it cannot be enforced through the SSMJA as a matter of law. This conclusion renders moot the parties’ arguments regarding whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Shirinyan’s section 1710.40 motion to vacate.
“We have the authority to vacate the entry of judgment under our general appellate jurisdiction….
“We exercise that discretion here to vacate the statutorily unauthorized entry of judgment on sister state judgment.”
The case is United Heritage Co. Ltd. v. Shirinyan, B338382.
Attorneys on appeal were Fahim Farivar, of Tarzana, for Shirinyan, and Newport Beach practitioner Brian M. Bush for United.
Delay Explained
The Los Angeles Superior Court register shows that an 86-page motion for reconsideration was filed on Aug. 5, 2022. The “unexplained” delay is explained by examining the motion; it reflects a hearing date of Feb. 22, 2024, set pursuant to the court reservation system.
Civil cases were backlogged in light of the pandemic.
Shirinyan’s supplemental brief was filed Jan. 29, 2024. The hearing was held, as scheduled, on Feb. 22.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company