Filed: November 10, 2021
| Entered: November 10, 2021
VIM Recyclers LP v. Magner, et al
370(Other Fraud) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Motion hearing held. Judgment/Creditor Plaintiff VIM Recyclers L.P. moves to revive its August 29, 2005 judgment against Judgment Debtors/Defendants Luke Magner and Industrecycle. On August 29, 2005, Judge Denlow entered a judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendant Luke Magner in the amount of $185,946.63 (consisting of $175,864.82 in damages and $10,081.81 in costs) on Count I of the Amended Complaint and against Defendants Luke Magner and Industrecyle, L.L.C. on Counts II and III of the Amended Complaint in the amount of $164,934.64 (consisting of $154,852.83 in damages plus costs of $10,081.81). The judgment stated: "The amount of the judgment rendered against defendant Luke Magner on Count I includes the amount of the judgment rendered against defendants Luke Magner and Industrecycle, L.L.C., jointly and severally, on Counts II and III. The amounts of the judgments rendered on Count I (on the one hand) and on Counts II and III (on the other) are not in addition to each other. Any amounts received by plaintiff V.I.M Recyclers, L.P. in full or partial satisfaction of this judgment shall be applied first to the amount of the joint and several judgment against defendant Luke Magner and defendant Industrecycle, L.L.C., and once the amount of the judgment provided for with respect to Counts II and III, have been collected from either defendant Luke Magner and/or from defendant Industrecycle, L.L.C., the judgment will then be satisfied as to defendant Industrecycle, L.L.C." Doc. 105. The full judgment has not been satisfied. Plaintiff's Petition states that Defendants are entitled to credits in the sum of $102,000, which leaves $83,946.63 of the judgment due and owing. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(1), supplementary proceedings to enforce a judgment in federal court are governed by the procedure of the state where the federal court is located. Section 12-108(a) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure provides that a judgment may not be enforced after seven years from the entry of the judgment, except on revival. 735 ILCS 5/12-108(a). Revival of judgments in Illinois is governed by 735 ILCS 5/2-1602, which states that "a judgment may be revived by filing of a petition to revive the judgment... in the seventh year after its last revival.. and by serving the petition and entering a court order for revival...." 735 ILCS 5/2-1602(a). Plaintiff served notice of the Petition on the Judgment Debtors/Defendants on October 27, 2021. See Doc. 134. The judgment was last revived on December 11, 2014. See Doc. 116. By filing the Petition in 2021, within the seventh year after its last revival, Plaintiff has complied with section 2-1602(a). The Court scheduled a hearing at which no counsel or party from the Defendant appeared, and no objection has been filed on the docket. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Petition to Revive Judgment. The Court notes that the Petition properly includes a statement as to accrued interest. See 735 ILCS § 5/2-1602(b) (stating "The petition shall include a statement as to the original date and amount of the judgment, court costs expended, accrued interest, and credits to the judgment, if any."). According to the Petition, as of October 31, 2021, statutory interest at the rate of 3.59% has accrued in the sum of $81,036.25. Although post-judgment interest accrues on all federal judgments and post-judgment interest can be determined in supplemental proceedings, "nothing in the Illinois code suggests that the amount of post judgment interest must be calculated and included in an order reviving a judgment." Berthoud v. Veselik, 2018 WL 6831129, at *7-8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 27, 2018). Moreover, according to the plain language of the Illinois code, the "order reviving a judgment shall be for the original amount of the judgment." 735 ILCS 5/2-1602(d). The Court will therefore "revive the judgment in its original form, without quantifying an amount of post judgment interest." Berthoud, 2018 WL 6831129, at *7. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Petition to Revive Judgment 132 is granted. The August 29, 2005 judgment against Defendants Luke Magner and Industrecycle is revived in the original amount of $185,946.63. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 11/10/2021)