945 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2019), 19-4037, Caballero v. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia
|Citation:||945 F.3d 1270|
|Opinion Judge:||KELLY, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||Antonio CABALLERO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FUERZAS ARMADAS REVOLUCIONARIAS DE COLOMBIA, a/k/a FARC-EP, a/k/a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia; Ejercito de Liberacion Nacional, a/k/a ELN, a/k/a National Liberation Army; The Norte de Valle Cartel, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||Bradley R. Helsten, Zumpano Patricios & Helsten, LLC, Holladay, Utah, Joseph I. Zumpano, Leon N. Patricios, Rossana Baeza, Zumpano Patricios, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida, on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before EID, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 27, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah, (D.C. No. 2:17-CV-00315-CW)
Submitted on the briefs:[*]
Bradley R. Helsten, Zumpano Patricios & Helsten, LLC, Holladay, Utah, Joseph I. Zumpano, Leon N. Patricios, Rossana Baeza, Zumpano Patricios, P.A., Coral Gables, Florida, on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before EID, KELLY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
Antonio Caballero filed the underlying lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking a "judgment on a judgment" he had obtained from a Florida state court. The federal district court registered the Florida state-court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, but denied all other relief because Mr. Caballero did not establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants. As a result, Mr. Caballero could not utilize federal district court collection procedures. Mr. Caballero then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which the district court denied. He appeals both orders. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Mr. Caballero sued the defendants in Florida state court, where he obtained a judgment for over $190 million. He then filed the underlying action in Utah federal court alleging that the defendants are Colombian drug traffickers who kidnapped, tortured, and killed his father to facilitate their trafficking and distribution of illicit drugs. The federal complaint further alleged that the defendants, through their
agents and representatives, were trafficking millions of dollars of illicit drugs into and through Utah and, further, that their "vicious and vile acts against [Mr. Caballero] and his family were a necessary component part of this scheme." Aplt. App. Vol. 1, at 10.
Mr. Caballero requested a "judgment on a judgment" to have the federal court enter a judgment and authorize collection procedures. His complaint asserted that he "expects to proceed against assets located in Utah pursuant to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, [Pub. L. No. 107-297, § 201(a), 116 Stat. 2322, 2337, codified as a note to 28 U.S.C. § 1610 (TRIA)], and to take discovery as to assets owned by the Defendants or their agencies and instrumentalities." Id. at 9. He served the defendants with process in the federal suit; none of the defendants answered or otherwise participated in the Utah federal action.
The district court registered the judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, despite Mr. Caballeros request to enter a "judgment on a judgment" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738, and denied all other relief, holding that he had not demonstrated personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Mr. Caballero filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), seeking to have the court enter a new federal judgment. The district court denied the motion. Mr. Caballero appeals, arguing that § 1963 is limited to registration of a federal judgment in another federal court, and he is entitled to a new judgment, which would allow him to use collection remedies.
II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute." Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Federal subject matter jurisdiction...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP