1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 INJAZAT TECHNOLOGY FUND B.S.C., Case No. 11-cv-04133-PJH 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXPUNGE JUDGMENT AND LIENS

10 HAMID NAJAFI, Re: Dkt. No. 147 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Before the court is a motion seeking expungement of judgment and liens by 15 defendant and judgment debtor Hamid Najafi. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for 16 decision without oral argument. Accordingly, the hearing set for September 8, 2022, is 17 VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments 18 and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as 19 follows. 20 BACKGROUND 21 This case was initiated by Injazat Technology Fund B.S.C. (“Injazat”) to confirm an 22 international arbitration award against Najafi and another business executive. Dkt. 1. 23 The court granted Injazat’s petition to confirm the arbitration award and entered final 24 judgment in favor of Injazat against Najafi in the amount of $3,426,552.45 on May 4, 25 2012. Dkt. 62, 65. The judgment was ordered to be enforceable against Najafi’s real 26 property located at 26645 Altamont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022, and 6509 27 Lakeville Highway, Petaluma, California 94954. Id. 1 heard by Magistrate Judge Cousins. See, e.g., Dkt. 137. This action has been dormant 2 since 2013. See Dkt. 144. Najafi now asks the court to expunge the judgment and liens 3 on the basis that they are no longer enforceable—Injazat’s 10-year period in which to 4 enforce the judgment under California law has expired, and no effort was made to renew 5 or extend the judgment. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Injazat has not filed an opposition, but Najafi fails to persuade the court that the 8 actions he seeks are warranted or proper. Najafi contends that the judgment lien on his 9 two properties should be extinguished because the period for enforcement has expired 10 and Injazat has not renewed the judgment. Dkt. 147 at 4-5. 11 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1), procedures “in proceedings 12 supplementary to and in aid of judgment . . . must accord with the procedure of the state 13 where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 69(a)(1); see also In re Levander, 180 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) (noting that 15 Rule 69(a) “permits judgment creditors to use any execution method consistent with the 16 practice and procedure of the state in which the district court sits.”). Since there is no 17 applicable federal statute governing the time period for enforceability of judgments, the 18 court relies on California law. See In re Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights 19 Litig., 536 F.3d 980, 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts look “to the law of the registration forum 20 for its statute of limitations on enforcement of judgments.”). 21 The relevant California statute that governs the period of enforceability for 22 judgments provides:

23 Except as otherwise provided by statute, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of entry of a money judgment or a 24 judgment for possession or sale of property: (a) The judgment may not be enforced. 25 (b) All enforcement procedures pursuant to the judgment or to a writ or order issued pursuant to the judgment shall cease. 26 (c) Any lien created by an enforcement procedure pursuant to the judgment is extinguished. 27 1 procedures concerning the application for renewals), 697.310 (creation and duration of 2 liens generally). However, “Section 683.020 does not require a court to vacate a 3 judgment after the ten-year period runs. Rather, the statute simply provides that the 4 judgment ‘may not be enforced.’” In re Copeland, No. AP 07-01071-RN, 2016 WL 5 423798, at *3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2016), aff’d, No. 2:05-BK-11844-ER, 2017 WL 6 2843305 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 3, 2017) (citation omitted). The statute does not provide a 7 mechanism to vacate an expired judgment, and courts do not err where they refuse to 8 vacate an expired judgment. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V v. KXD Tech., Inc., No. CV 9 07-6117 AHS, 2020 WL 5092447, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 10, 2020). 10 Here, Najafi fails to cite authorities that would support the relief requested in the 11 motion. He offers no case, and the court has found none, where a court has expunged or 12 vacated a judgment in the way he proposes. Rather, courts facing similar motions have 13 denied them, noting their lack of authority to extinguish judgment liens at the request of a 14 judgment debtor where no party sought enforcement and based solely on the judgment 15 debtor’s representation that the period for enforcement under section 683.020 had 16 expired. See, e.g., Koninklijke Philips, 2020 WL 5092447, at *3. 17 Further, although Najafi frames his request as a request for the court to find that 18 the judgment liens against his property are extinguished, the practical effect of his 19 request is similar to the one rejected in Koninklijke Philips. Najafi’s reliance on section 20 683.020’s prohibition of enforcement of a judgment after the 10-year period does not alter 21 the analysis because the statute does not create a mechanism for a court to find a 22 judgment lien is extinguished absent an enforcement action. Thus, even if the limitations 23 period of section 683.020 has run, the statute does not authorize the court to declare that 24 the judgment lien is extinguished absent an enforcement action. Therefore, Najafi’s 25 motion must be denied. 26 CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Najafi’s motion to expunge judgment 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: September 2, 2022 3 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

4 United States District Judge

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27