Cascade Energy & Metals Corporation Telegraph Gold Corporation, for Itself and the Successor in Interest to Telegraph Resources, Inc. v. Jeffrey G. Banks Gold Technics Dfts Kenneth Caldwell Elmer J. Davis David G. Henry Roger A. Mann Mann Caldwell Partnership Robert A. Nickerson Peter P. Samarin Patricia Stoltenberg Herbert W. Stoltenberg Edwin Stoltenberg Delford R. Ashley George Slater Patricia Slater Robert Doub Sam Hambarian Alyce Hambarian Lionel Ascher Samuel Harmatz Bernard Hodowski A.C. Nejedly Chris Waugh H.E. Moses R.E. Donahey Grace v. Duncan Eliot Weinberg Harmatz and Hodowski, a California Partnership
Docket: 95-4045
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; March 20, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Citation of unpublished opinions is now permissible if they hold persuasive value on a material issue, provided they are attached to the citing document or copies are provided to the court and parties during oral argument. This case involves Cascade Energy and Metals Corporation and Telegraph Gold Corporation, which sought declaratory relief and money damages related to the recording of a final judgment from a prior case that was improperly recorded in San Bernardino County without first being registered in the federal district court, as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1963.
The bankruptcy court ruled that this improper recording did not create an enforceable lien on Cascade's property, a decision affirmed by the district court. The appellees later moved for summary judgment on Cascade's remaining claims, which were primarily based on the improper recordings. The bankruptcy court granted the summary judgment, concluding that there were no material facts in dispute, that California law applied, and that under Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)(2), the appellees' recording was protected by absolute judicial privilege. Additionally, other claims were dismissed on grounds of statute of limitations, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court affirmed this judgment, and jurisdiction was exercised under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291.
The bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, applying the standard under Fed. R.Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. The appellants failed to show any such issue, as their arguments were largely legal, focusing on the implications of the appellees' recording of the final judgment.
The appellants contended that California's absolute judicial privilege does not apply because California law is not governing the action. However, federal courts apply the law of the forum state in conflict of laws issues, utilizing Utah's "most significant relationship" test from the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Factors considered include the location of the injury and conduct, the domicile and business locations of the parties, and the nature of their relationship.
The analysis indicates that California has the most significant relationship to the claims related to the recording of the final judgment, as the corporation involved is based in Nevada, the mine is in California, the recording occurred in California, and the appellees reside there. The only ties to Utah are the corporate offices of Cascade and the bankruptcy case's location. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court correctly applied California law.
Under California law, the recording of the final judgment was protected by absolute judicial privilege, as defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)(2). This privilege applies broadly to any communication in judicial proceedings and covers all torts except malicious prosecution. The California Supreme Court has affirmed that the privilege pertains to publications necessary for achieving the objectives of litigation, even if made outside the courtroom, provided they are lawfully permitted and reasonably related to the action. Thus, the summary judgment was appropriately granted.
The privilege outlined in Cal. Civ. Code 47(b)(2) applies to the recording of the final judgment in the Cascade action, as this recording occurred during a judicial proceeding aimed at enforcing an out-of-state judgment. The appellants failed to assert a valid malicious prosecution claim, and their vague defense does not constitute "bringing an action" under California law. The appellees, who recorded the judgment, were legitimate litigants acting to fulfill the objectives of the litigation. Appellants' argument that the judgment's recording was unauthorized under Albertson is invalid, as established case law supports that the privilege applies even in cases of improper recordings. Furthermore, the recording had a logical connection to the action, being essential for enforcing the judgment in California.
Appellants incorrectly assert that the privilege does not apply because the recording was not part of a California judicial proceeding; the statute encompasses "any judicial proceeding," and case law demonstrates that the privilege extends to actions outside California. The court concludes that the recording of the Cascade judgment in San Bernardino County is protected by absolute judicial privilege.
Additionally, the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed Telegraph's crossclaims unrelated to the bankruptcy estate due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over collateral matters. The court affirmed the decisions made regarding the recording and the dismissal of unrelated claims. The order and judgment is not binding precedent, except in specific legal doctrines, and the court generally discourages citation of such orders, although it may be cited under certain conditions.
