Opinion
No. 80138-COA
05-27-2021
CLIFTON HUTCHINS, JR., Appellant, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Clifton Hutchins, Jr. appeals from a district court order denying a motion for application of a foreign judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory, Judge.
In the underlying case, Hutchins filed a "Constructive Notice and Motion for the Clerk's Office to Register Claimant's Application of Foreign Judgment Pursuant to NRS 17.330-17.400 and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act" in an attempt to domesticate and enforce a purported foreign judgment from the "Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court of Atlan Amexem Al Moroc N.W." which Hutchins alleges is located "near" Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Shortly after receiving the purported foreign judgment against the "people of the state of California," the district court entered an order denying Hutchins' application for enforcement of the foreign judgment on the grounds that it was without jurisdiction to enforce a judgment against the State of California under Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019). The district court further noted that Nevada will not recognize a foreign judgment if that judgment was "rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process of law," citing Gonzales-Alpizar v. Griffith, 130 Nev. 10, 19, 317 P.3d 820, 826 (2014) (quoting (and adopting) the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 482(1) (1987)).
Following this decision, Hutchins filed an objection to the decision, arguing that California received proper notice of the action, consented to the jurisdiction of the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court, and that the district court does not have jurisdiction to challenge a foreign judgment, as the entry of judgment is an administrative function of the court not subject to judicial process. The district court subsequently denied the objection on the basis that Hutchins had failed to show that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court is the "properly constituted court of any geographical jurisdiction," and further stated that it was unclear whether the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court is a "court of a state of the United State[s], of a foreign country, or is some form of private tribunal." Hutchins now appeals.
As an initial matter, Hutchins fails to challenge the district court's application of Hyatt to conclude that Nevada courts lacked jurisdiction to enforce a judgment against the State of California on appeal, and therefore any challenges to the same are deemed waived. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived). Accordingly, affirmance of the district court's decision is warranted on that basis alone. See Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming the district court's ruling where the appellants failed to challenge an alternative ground the district court provided for it). Nonetheless, because Hutchins' appellate arguments relate to the district court's authority to reject his application to enforce the purported judgment, we turn to address those arguments.
On appeal, Hutchins argues that, under NRS 17.330-.400, Nevada's Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, the district court is prohibited from making "any independent determinations or rulings pertaining to the registration of a foreign judgment" without an allegation of fraud, lack of jurisdiction or other challenges from the judgment debtor. However, this argument fails to account for the definition of foreign judgment set forth in NRS 17.340, which provides that a foreign judgment is a "judgment of a court of the United States or of any other court which is entitled to full faith and credit in this state." (Emphasis added.) Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, a final judgment entered in a sister state must be respected by the courts of this state. See U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; Rosenstein v. Steele, 103 Nev. 571, 573, 747 P.2d 230, 231 (1987).
And here, Hutchins has not proffered any arguments to demonstrate that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court is a court of any state or territory of the United States, or otherwise shown that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court is a court of a recognized jurisdiction whose decisions are entitled to full faith and credit in Nevada. Indeed, Hutchins wholly fails to address the district court's conclusion regarding his failure to show that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court was a "properly constituted court of any geographical jurisdiction," and has waived any arguments regarding the same. See Powell, 127 Nev. at 161 n.3, 252 P.3d at 672 n.3
Hutchins has also failed to present any argument, on appeal or below, suggesting that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court is the court of a foreign country, or that its judgment is enforceable under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act as codified in NRS 17.700-.820.
Nevertheless, we observe that, in line with the district court's conclusion on this point, federal district courts from several jurisdictions have determined that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court is not a legitimate court. See Jolivette v. California, No. 2:13-cv-1882 LKK DAD PS., 2013 WL 6331356, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013) (stating that "there is no indication that such a government exists or is recognized by the United States" in reference to a judgment issued by Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme Court); Hayes v. Burns, No. 3:13-cv-00028, 2013 WL 4501464, at *4 (M.D. Tenn., Aug. 22, 2013) (describing the "Shaykamaxum Atlan/Amexem Empire" as a "mysterious alternative jurisdiction" that is "devoid of legal merit or effect"); Hatshipsue v. Lasalle Bank, No. 3:13-0101, 2013 WL 2178027, at *4 (M.D. Tenn., May 20, 2013) (describing jurisdictional allegations relating to Shaykamaxum as "largely incomprehensible" and insufficient to establish federal question subject matter jurisdiction); Lasalle Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Johnson, No. 3:12-1030, 2012 WL 6628940, at *2 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 29, 2012) ("[T]here is no indication that [the Shaykamaxum Atlanexem Republic] exists or is recognized by the United States").
Thus, because Hutchins has not demonstrated that the Shaykamaxum Grand/Supreme court is a court of the United States, a sister state, or otherwise entitled to full faith and credit for the purposes of enforcing a foreign judgment under NRS 17.330-.400, we conclude the district court properly determined that the purported foreign judgment at issue here could not be enforced under these statutes. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision.
Insofar as Hutchins raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they either do not present a basis for relief or need not be reached given the disposition of this appeal.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Eighth Judicial District Court, Dept. 1
Clifton Hutchins, Jr.
Eighth District Court Clerk