United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
Trustees for the IBEW, LOCAL NO. 1, HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al., Plaintiffs,
MAXIMUM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a COMMWORLD OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Revival of Judgment. (ECF No. 24).
5, 2009, this Court entered a Default Judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and against Defendant in the amount of $112,
790.46 (ECF No. 24-1 at 1-2). On July 10, 2009, Plaintiffs
filed garnishment on Defendant's bank account with
National City Bank. (ECF No. 24-1 at 3-4). On July 27, 2009,
Plaintiffs filed a Registration of Foreign Judgment in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri,
Twenty-First Judicial Circuit. (ECF No. 24-1 at 5-12). On
August 3, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Registration of Foreign
Judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, State of
Missouri, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit. (ECF No. 24-1 at
13-21). The Default Judgment remains unsatisfied. (ECF No.
24, ¶5). This Motion for Revival of Judgment was filed
on May 14, 2019 (ECF No. 24).
argues that the Motion for Revival of Judgment (ECF No. 24)
was untimely because it was filed more than ten years after
the Judgment was entered. (ECF No. 35). Defendant asserts,
"Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to claim that the
registration of the Judgment entered in this case in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County and then Circuit Court of
the City of St. Louis revived the judgment in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
That simply isn't consistent with Rule 74.09 of the
Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure, RS.Mo. §516.350, or
the case law discussed above." (ECF No. 35, ¶12
(referencing Luck Leung v. Tuen Fu, 241
S.W.3d 838 (Mo. App. 2007) and Walnut Grove Products v.
Schnell, 659 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. App. 1983)). Thus, Defendant
claims Plaintiffs were required to file their Motion to
Revive Judgment within ten years from the date the Judgment
was entered in this case, May 5, 2009. (ECF No. 35,
Court holds that the language of the Missouri statute and the
case law contradicts Defendant's position. The text of
Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.09 and R.S. Mo. §516.350
do not require the revival of judgment occur in the same
court in which the original judgment was entered:
Every judgment, order or decree of any court of record of the
United States, or of this or any other state, territory or
country, except for any judgment, order, or decree awarding
child support or maintenance or dividing pension, retirement,
life insurance, or other employee benefits in connection with
a dissolution of marriage, legal separation or annulment
which mandates the making of payments over a period of time
or payments in the future, shall be presumed to be paid and
satisfied after the expiration often years from the date of
the original rendition thereof, or if the same has
been revived upon personal service duly had upon the
defendant or defendants therein, then after ten years from
and after such revival...
RS. Mo. §516.350 (emphasis added). The Missouri Court of
Appeals likewise has noted that registry of a foreign
judgment revives the judgment in the Missouri Courts. See
Leung v. Fu, 241 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Mo.Ct.App. 2007)
("The court found that when the foreign judgment was
registered, it was revived, or became a new judgment in the
Missouri courts."). In addition, 28 U.S.C. §1963,
does not preclude revival of judgment in this
case. See Stanford v. Utley, 341 F.2d
265, 268 (8th Cir. 1965) (where plaintiff registered foreign
(Mississippi District Court) judgment in Missouri District
Court, the "the Missouri federal registration equated
with a new Missouri federal judgment on the original
Mississippi federal judgment").
Court holds that this Court's May 5, 2009 Judgment was
revived when Plaintiffs registered their foreign judgment in
the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on July 27, 2009 and in
the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis on August 3, 2009.
The last prior revival of the Judgment occurred on August 3,
2009 when Plaintiffs registered the Judgment in the Circuit
of St. Louis City. This Motion for Revival of Judgment was
filed on May 14, 2019 (ECF No. 24). Thus, the Court holds
that the Motion for Revival of Judgment was timely because it
was filed within ten years of the last registry and revival
of Judgment. See Missouri Supreme Court Rule 74.09;
RS. Mo. §516.350; 28 U.S.C. §1963; Stanford v.
Utley, 341 F.2d 265, 267-71 (8th Cir. 1965).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs'
Motion for Revival of Judgment. (ECF No. 24) is
 28 U.S.C. §1963 provides: "A
judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property
entered in any court of appeals, district court, bankruptcy
court, or in the Court of International Trade may be
registered by filing a certified copy of the judgment in any
other district or, with respect to the Court of International
Trade, in any judicial district, when the judgment has become
final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when
ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause
shown. Such a judgment entered in favor of the United States
may be so registered any time after judgment is entered. A