Monge v. Rojas
| Decision Date | 17 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. MC 15–0030 JB,MC 15–0030 JB |
| Citation | 150 F.Supp.3d 1244 |
| Parties | Joe Jesse Monge and Rosana Elena Monge, Plaintiffs, v. Alicia Rojas and Francisco Javier Jayme, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Michael R. Nevarez, The Law Offices of Michael R. Nevarez, El Paso, Texas, Attorney for the Plaintiffs
Alicia Rojas, Francisco Javier Jayme, Sunland Park, New Mexico, Defendants pro se
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Objection and Opposition to Plaintiff's Filing of Foreign Judgment, filed June 15, 2015 (Doc. 7)(“Objections”). The Court held a hearing on August 27, 2015. The primary issue is whether Plaintiffs Joe Jesse Monge and Rosana Elena Monge can register the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas' judgment against Defendants Alicia Rojas and Francisco Javier Jayme, as they intended to do when they filed the Notice of Filing of Foreign Judgment, filed May 22, 2015 (Doc. 1)(“Notice”). Because the Monges: (i) appealed the District Court for the Western District of Texas' judgment; and (ii) did not obtain an order from the District Court for the Western District of Texas authorizing them to register the judgment, the Monges improperly registered the judgment in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
On June 14, 2010, the Monges filed a Complaint against the Defendants in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas seeking to turn over real property located at 105 Thoroughbred Court, Santa Teresa, New Mexico 88008–9130 (the “Thoroughbred Property”). See Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objection and Opposition to Plaintiff's Filing of Foreign Judgment, filed June 23, 2015 (Doc. 9)(“Response”). On September 5, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Respect to Trial in Adversary Proceeding No. 10–03019, filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas on September 5, 2014, filed in the District of New Mexico June 23, 2015 (Doc. 9–8)(“Findings of Fact”). In the Findings of Fact, the Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Monges “are the rightful legal owners of and are entitled to possession of the Thoroughbred Property.” Findings of Fact ¶ 239, at 78 (“Turnover Order”). It stated that § 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code requires the Defendants to turn over and deliver the Thoroughbred Property to the Monges. See Findings of Fact ¶ 243, at 79. The Defendants filed no objections to the Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. See Response ¶ 5, at 3.
On January 27, 2015, the Western District of Texas adopted all of the above-described findings from the Findings of Fact. See Order Adopting in Part Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at 4–36, filed in the Western District of Texas January 27, 2015, filed in the District of New Mexico May 22, 2015 (Doc. 1)(“Final Order”). That same day, January 27, 2015, the Western District of Texas filed a Final Judgment. See Final Judgment, filed in the Western District of Texas on January 27, 2015, filed in the District of New Mexico on May 22, 2015 (Doc. 1). Although the Monges appealed parts of the Final Order, they did not appeal the Turnover Order in the Final Order, which directed the Defendants to turn over the Thoroughbred Property to the Monges. See Response ¶ 8, at 4. The Defendants have not filed an appeal from either the Final Order or the Final Judgment; the time for filing any appeal has expired.
Five days later, on March 3, 2015, the Defendants filed a Chapter 7 Voluntary petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 701 –784. See Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines, filed in the District of New Mexico June 15, 2015 (Doc. 7)(“Chapter 7 Filing”). On May 6, 2015, the New Mexico Bankruptcy Court granted the Monges relief from the automatic stay to enforce the Turnover Order in the Final Judgment and Final Order. See Order Granting Third Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay (Enforce Turnover Order), filed in the District of New Mexico Bankruptcy Court May 6, 2015, filed in the District of New Mexico June 23, 2015 (Doc. 9–1)(“Order Granting Relief from Stay”).
On May 15, 2015, the New Mexico Bankruptcy Court authorized the Monges to register the Final Order and Final Judgment in the District of New Mexico. See Order Granting First Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay (Register Judgment), filed in the District of New Mexico Bankruptcy Court May 15, 2015, filed in the District of New Mexico June 23, 2015 (Doc. 9–2)(“Order Registering the Judgment”). Thus, on May 22, 2015, the Monges filed the Notice in the District of New Mexico registering the Final Judgment and Final Order. See Notice at 1.
The Defendants, representing themselves pro se, filed their Objections on June 15, 2015. See Objections at 1. They argue that they “are still protected by the automatic stay in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy,” Objections ¶ 5, at 2. They contend that the judgment against them “is currently in the process of appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,” Objections ¶ 10, at 3, and that new evidence will prove that they “are the rightful owners of the ‘Thoroughbred Property,’ ” Objections ¶ 12, at 4. They assert that their appeal precludes the judgment's execution. See Objections ¶ 17, at 3–4.
Additionally, the Defendants argue that “Michael Nevarez, the attorney representing the Plaintiff's [sic] is not licensed in New Mexico and he is not represented, affiliated or working with a Licensed New Mexico Attorney.” Objections ¶ 14, at 3. They appear to contend that Mr. Nevarez' status prevents the judgment's execution.
The Monges filed their Response on June 23, 2015. See Response at 1. They argue that, contrary to the Defendants' allegations, the Order Granting Relief from Stay “granted Plaintiffs relief from the automatic stay to enforce the Turnover Order found in the Final Order and Final Judgment.” Response ¶ 18, at 5. Moreover, they argue that the District of New Mexico Bankruptcy Court ordered the automatic stay lifted to allow them to register the Final Order and Final Judgment in the Order Registering the Judgment. See Response ¶¶ 21–22, at 6. The Monges also argue that the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit does not affect the judgment's execution. See Response ¶¶ 25–26, at 6–7. The Monges contend that the Turnover Order is not part of the Appeal. See Response ¶ 26, at 6–7. The Monges then assert that the Defendants waived any objections and cannot introduce new evidence on appeal. See Response ¶¶ 30–34, at 10–11.
In response to the Defendants' argument that the Monges' counsel is practicing law in New Mexico without a license, the Monges argue that their counsel is not practicing law in New Mexico. See Response ¶ 48, at 15. Instead, the Monges contend that their counsel “has merely registered a foreign judgment in the State of New Mexico, and entered an appearance in the United States Bankruptcy Court in New Mexico.” Response ¶ 49, at 15. The Monges assert that neither action requires affiliation with local counsel. See Response ¶ 49, at 15. Accordingly, the Monges ask the Court to deny the relief the Defendants seek. See Response at 16.
The Court held a hearing on August 27, 2015. See Transcript of Hearing (taken August 27, 2015)(“Tr.”).1 The Defendants asserted that they objected to the Monges' filing the judgment. See Tr. at 4:19–20 (Jayme). They argued that the Court should have approved the filing before the Plaintiffs filed it. See Tr. at 4:24–5:2 (Jayme). The Defendants pointed to no statutory law or case law, however, to support their contention that the Court must approve a foreign judgment's filing. See Tr. at 5:3–6 (Court, Jayme). The Defendants also argued that their case's appeal to the Fifth Circuit prevented the Monges from filing the judgment. See Tr. at 5:15–21 (Jayme). The Court recognized that the Defendants, at one point, had a right to appeal, but stated that their right to appeal does not affect the Monges' right to register this judgment in the District of New Mexico. See Tr. at 5:22–6:1 (Court).
The Defendants stated that their only other objection was that the Monges' counsel was practicing law in New Mexico without a license. See Tr. at 5:10–12 (Jayme). The Monges' counsel, Michael Nevarez, told the Court that he applied to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico for the specific purpose of registering the judgment. See Tr. at 7:238:3 (Nevarez). He stated that he was admitted and provided his federal bar number. See Tr. at 8:3 (Nevarez). The Monges also informed the Court that the United States Marshal's Office had already evicted the Defendants from the Thoroughbred Property and executed the judgment. See Tr. at 3:19–4:3 (Nevarez).
Section 1963 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides:
28 U.S.C. § 1963.
Congress enacted § 1963 in 1948 “to provide a prompt, efficient,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jayme v. Monge (In re Jayme)
...Thoroughbred property illegally executed by the United States Marshalls Service on June 23, 2015. See Judge James O. Browning Opinion, Monge v. Royas, 150 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (D.N.M. 2015)."(Doc. 36, at 8-9). 3. Jayme and Rojas argued "the Monges have been conducting a criminal enterprise whic......
-
PNC Bank, N.A. v. Walnut Grove Office Gardens, LLC
...at the time it was registered, the Amended Judgment was final by "expiration of the time for appeal." Id.; see Monge v. Rojas, 150 F.Supp.3d 1244, 1250-51 (D.N.M. 2015) ("The Monges were therefore not entitled to register the Final Judgment in the District of New Mexico to execute on that F......