This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.
Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum
opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain
computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of
Appeals and does not include the filing date.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 STANDAGE FARMS, INC.,
3 Plaintiff-Appellant,
4 v. No. 32,362
5 LUSK ONION INC.,
6 Defendant-Appellee.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY
8 Stephen K. Quinn, District Judge
9 Denise J. Trujillo
10 Albuquerque, NM
11 for Appellant
12 Behles Law Firm
13 Jennie Deden Behles
14 Albuquerque, NM
15 for Appellee
16 MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 SUTIN, Judge.
1 Plaintiff Standage Farms, Inc. appeals from the order on a motion to stay a
2 registration of foreign judgment and to vacate said judgment. [RP 242] Plaintiff
3 raises one issue on appeal: whether the district court exceeded the directions of the
4 Mandate and Opinion of this Court upon remand following the previous appeal by
5 making a determination of Plaintiff’s PACA status. [DS 3] PACA stands for the
6 Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t. [RP 180 (¶ 1)]
7 This Court’s calendar notice proposed to affirm. [CN 1] Plaintiff has filed a
8 memorandum in opposition that we have duly considered. [MIO] Unpersuaded,
9 however, we affirm.
10 DISCUSSION
11 Plaintiff originally filed this action in New Mexico district court to register its
12 Oregon default judgment against Defendant. [RP 1] The district court’s order denied
13 Defendant’s amended motion to stay the registration of foreign judgment and to
14 vacate it. [RP 64] Defendant appealed from that order to this Court (No. 30,912).
15 [RP 66] This Court filed a Memorandum Opinion, reversing and remanding the case
16 back to the district court. [RP 91-97] In the Opinion, this Court noted that Defendant
17 had moved to vacate the default judgment entered by the Oregon court for lack of
18 personal jurisdiction and fraud, alleging specific facts to support these claims. [RP
19 96] We further noted that the district court did not reach the merits of Defendant’s
2
1 defenses and had ruled that Defendant should have asserted the defenses in the Oregon
2 court. [Id.] “Because fraud and lack of jurisdiction are two grounds on which a
3 party may collaterally attack a foreign judgment,” we reversed the district court’s
4 order and remanded “for the district court to consider the merits of Defendant[’s]
5 defenses.” [RP 96-97]
6 On remand, the district court ruled that the Oregon court did have jurisdiction
7 over Defendant and that its judgment “satisfies due process[.]” [RP 240] In addition,
8 the district court ruled that Plaintiff’s judgment was not procured through fraud,
9 because (1) Plaintiff had “disclosed the basis of the claims and the history of the N.M.
10 [b]ankruptcy proceedings to the court”; (2) Plaintiff did not “willfully misrepresent[]
11 its status as a claimant in the [b]ankruptcy” proceedings to the district court; and (3)
12 “[t]hroughout this matter, [Plaintiff] appears to have believed it was a PACA
13 claimant.” [Id.] The district court then ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to enforce
14 its judgment in New Mexico, however, because (1) Plaintiff was not a PACA claimant
15 in the bankruptcy case (i.e., a creditor with priority claim status); (2) the bankruptcy
16 case was closed in a 2007 Final Decree without payment to Plaintiff; and therefore (3)
17 Plaintiff’s claim did not survive the entry of the Final Decree. [RP 241; see RP 240
18 (¶ i)] We affirm this ruling.
3
1 In this regard, although Plaintiff continues to contend that it is one of the Class
2 5-B PACA claimants whose claim was not discharged in the bankruptcy final decree
3 [MIO 1-2], as we stated in the calendar notice, the record proper indicates that the
4 bankruptcy plan, which was approved by Plaintiff and the bankruptcy court in 2005,
5 did not list Plaintiff as a PACA claimant. [RP 240 (¶¶ e, f, g); see also RP 218 (¶ e)
6 (describing Class 5-A and Class 5-B creditors); RP 235 (showing creditor Central
7 Produce as the only Class V-B (PACA) creditor; RP 237 (showing Plaintiff as a Class
8 V-A unsecured creditor)].
9 In this case, moreover, if Plaintiff survived Defendant’s collateral attack of the
10 Oregon judgment on the basis of lack of jurisdiction or fraud, the parties fully
11 recognized that Defendant’s next line of defense to enforcement in New Mexico was
12 whether Plaintiff’s judgment survived the 2007 Final Decree in the bankruptcy
13 proceedings. [RP 226 (stating that the plan “has been substantially consummated . . .
14 and that the estate has been fully administered”)] In this regard, we note that neither
15 Plaintiff nor Defendant challenge the merits of the district court’s rulings that the
16 Oregon court had jurisdiction over Defendant and that Plaintiff did not obtain the
17 Oregon judgment through fraud or misrepresentation, and accordingly, we do not
18 address the merits of the district court’s rulings on these issues. Moreover, the record
19 proper also reflects that the parties briefed the issue of whether Plaintiff’s judgment
4
1 survived the 2007 Final Decree prior to the New Mexico district court’s decision and
2 order. [RP 180-88; RP 204 (¶ 10); RP 240-43]
3 We hold that whether Plaintiff was a PACA creditor and whether Plaintiff’s
4 claim survived the Final Decree in the bankruptcy proceedings to be enforceable in
5 New Mexico, can be considered the merits of “Defendant’s defenses” for
6 determination on remand pursuant to this Court’s Memorandum Opinion. [RP 96-97]
7 The district court had the authority to decide this issue, and we affirm its
8 determination on the merits.
9 CONCLUSION
10 We affirm the district court’s decision and order as being within the parameters
11 of the order of remand set forth in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion.
12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
13 __________________________________
14 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge
15 WE CONCUR:
16 _______________________________
17 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge
18 _______________________________
19 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
5