Facio v. Jones
| Decision Date | 25 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 88-C-965G. |
| Citation | 714 F. Supp. 504 |
| Parties | Gary FACIO, Plaintiff, v. The Hon. Maurice JONES, and Collection Management Agency, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Brian M. Barnard, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Gary Facio.
Carlie Christensen, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Hon. Maurice Jones.
Ralph C. Amott, Orem, Utah, for Collection Management Agency, Inc.
This matter came on for hearing on December 19, 1988, on cross motions by the plaintiff and defendant Jones for summary judgment, and on the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff Gary Facio was represented by Brian M. Barnard, defendant the Honorable Maurice Jones was represented by Carlie Christensen, and defendant Collection Management Agency was represented by Ralph C. Amott. Legal memoranda were submitted on behalf of all parties. Counsel argued the motions extensively, after which the matter was taken under advisement. The court now being fully advised, sets forth its Memorandum Decision and Order.
On March 17, 1988, plaintiff Gary Facio wrote and issued a check in the amount of $8.71 to a Salt Lake City eating establishment known as HIRES. Subsequently, the check was dishonored for insufficient funds by plaintiff's bank and returned to HIRES unpaid. On or about April 15, 1988, after receiving notice that the check was not paid, plaintiff mailed a money order in the amount of $10.00 to HIRES to cover the check and to help defray any additional costs. On April 29, 1988, defendant Collection Management Agency, Inc., commenced a civil action, on behalf of HIRES, against the plaintiff in the Third Circuit Court, Salt Lake County, Sandy department, for collection of the dishonored check. Facio was properly served with a Summons and Complaint on May 6, 1988, but believing the matter had been handled with the money order, failed to file an Answer. On June 2, 1988, a default was taken in the Third Circuit Court, and on June 9, 1988 default judgment was entered against him in the amount of $190.46.
Pursuant to Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c) and 60(b), a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment was filed on August 23, 1988, in the Third Circuit Court. On September 22, 1988, a hearing was held in the Third Circuit Court on Facio's Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment. The Honorable Maurice Jones, in accordance with pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Utah, denied the Motion on the basis that Facio failed to offer proof of a meritorious defense. On September 28, 1988, a Satisfaction of Judgment was entered in Third Circuit Court by Collection Management Agency. However, the Satisfaction of Judgment was facilitated by reason of garnishment against Facio's wages and on his bank account.
Plaintiff Facio seeks declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 19831 for deprivation of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff contends that Judge Jones' application of Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c)2 and 60(b)3 is unconstitutional to the extent that a defendant is required to offer proof of a meritorious defense when seeking to set aside a default judgment. By pendent claim, plaintiff challenges the validity of the default and default judgment entered against him. Defendant Judge Jones contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims, that the claims are moot, that his application of Rules 55(c) and 60(b) in accordance with precedent established by the Supreme Court of Utah is constitutional, and that in any event he is immune from suit as a matter of law. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment.
The Utah Supreme Court in effect has promulgated a court rule that under Rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure a defendant must offer proof of a meritorious defense to an action before a default judgment can be set aside. State of Utah Dept. of Social Services v. Musselman, 667 P.2d 1053, 1055-56 (Utah 1983); Mason v. Mason, 597 P.2d 1322, 1323 (Utah 1979); Downey State Bank v. Major-Blakeney Corp., 545 P.2d 507, 510 (Utah 1976). In its most recent pronouncement in Musselman, the court stated:
Musselman, 667 P.2d 1055-56 (quoting Downey State Bank, 545 P.2d at 510) (footnotes omitted). The rationale for requiring the showing of a meritorious defense before a default judgment is set aside appears to be that in terms of judicial economy courts should not be occupied with cases that can be disposed of summarily where no meritorious defense to the claim exists. In this case Judge Jones simply followed the precedents established by the Utah Supreme Court.
Defendants contend that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because of lack of jurisdiction to review decisions of state courts. It is urged that in order to assess the constitutionality of his application of Rules 55(c) and 60(b) in this case, this court will be required to review Judge Jones' decision.
It is clearly established law that the Supreme Court has the exclusive power to review state court decisions.4 However, federal trial courts can adjudicate civil rights complaints such as that brought by plaintiff without directly reviewing state court decisions.5 The Tenth Circuit recognized this distinction in Razatos v. Colorado Supreme Court, 746 F.2d 1429 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 2019, 85 L.Ed.2d 301 (1985). Razatos was an attorney who had been suspended from practice by the Colorado Supreme Court. He brought an action in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory relief that the Colorado procedure for disciplining attorneys violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.6 The Tenth Circuit reversed on the subject matter jurisdiction issue because of the distinction between challenging a particular state disciplinary proceeding and a general constitutional attack on state rules governing discipline. The court said that "district courts are ... required to distinguish between general challenges to state bar rules as promulgated and challenges to state court decisions in particular cases." Id. at 1433. The court recognized that it would be inappropriate to review a particular state court proceeding and upheld the lower court on that aspect of its ruling, stating: "To the extent Razatos sought review in the district court of the judicial decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, the district court properly refused to hear his complaint." Id. at 1432.
The Tenth Circuit in Razatos concluded that Razatos' constitutional challenge was not "inextricably intertwined" with the state court decision so as to require review of the rule's application.7 The court said: Id. at 1434. The same is true in the case at hand. This court is simply being asked to render a ruling on a claim for declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that as promulgated and construed by Utah case law, Rules 55(c) and 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure deprive the plaintiff of property without due process. In those circumstances, this court is not acting as an appellate court to review a decision of the Third Circuit Court of the State of Utah.
In United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1138, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), the Supreme Court stated that pendent claim jurisdiction exists "whenever there is a claim `arising under the constitution' ... and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional case." Over time, the Supreme Court has developed a three-prong test for assessing whether a federal court should exercise jurisdiction over a pendent state claim. The test requires examination of the court's power to exercise jurisdiction, its discretion in exercising that power, and whether Congressional intent would preclude such exercise.
As to the first prong, in United Mine Workers the court said that federal courts must have power to exercise pendent jurisdiction:
The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff's claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming substantiality of the federal issues there is power in federal courts to hear the whole.
Id. (footnote omitted). In this regard, a plaintiff's claim must not be "so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions ... or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District Court ..." Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 543, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1382, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666-67, 94 S.Ct. 772, 776-77, 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974)).
With respect to the second prong, "justification for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Facio v. Jones
...courts can adjudicate civil rights complaints such as that brought by plaintiff without directly reviewing state court decisions." Facio, 714 F.Supp. at 506. We disagree with that conclusion as it applies to the particular facts of this case. We hold that the district court did not have jur......