United States District Court, D. Utah
MEMORANDUM DECISION DENYING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF
S. Jenkins United States Senior District Judge.
13, 2016, the court entered Default Judgment in favor of
Tonaquint, Inc. ("Tonaquint") against Cyclone Power
Technologies, Inc. ("Cyclone") in the amount of
$171, 299.56 plus attorney fees and other legal
costs. Further, the court awarded post-judgment
interest at the rate of 22% per annum.
September 15, 2017, Tonaquint filed an Application for Writ
of Garnishment, which identified Transfer Online, Inc.
("Transfer Online")-Cyclone's transfer agent
holding authorized but unissued Cyclone common stock-as
garnishee. The Application identified Transfer
Online's location as Portland, Oregon. On September 20,
2017, Tonaquint filed supplemental briefing outlining its
position regarding the court's authority to issue a writ
of garnishment against an out-of-state
hearing on the matter came before the court on October 6,
2017. Brigman Harman appeared on behalf of Tonaquint. At the
close of argument, the court ruled from the bench, denying
Tonaquint's Application for Writ of Garnishment.
with the court's oral ruling, the court herein finds it
lacks authority to issue a writ of garnishment against an
out-of-state non-party. Under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the court applies Utah's procedural rules
regarding garnishment-Utah R. Civ. P. 64 and Utah R. Civ. P.
Tonaquint does not point to any specific Utah procedural
rules allowing the court to issue a writ of garnishment
against an out-of-state garnishee regarding out-of-state
property. Instead, Tonaquint cites to a footnote in the Utah
Supreme Court case Aequitas Enterprises, LLC v.
Interstate Inv. Grp,, LLC, which quotes a New York
opinion for the proposition that "a ... court with
personal jurisdiction over a defendant may order him to turn
over out-of-state property regardless of whether the
defendant is a judgment debtor or a
court, however, finds that the Utah Supreme Court's
decision in Aequitas Enterprises supports a
determination in the present case that the court does not
have authority to issue a writ of garnishment against
initial matter, the footnote quotation Tonaquint points to
in Aequitas Enterprises refers to the court's
ability to order a defendant to turn over
out-of-state property. Such is not applicable in the present
case, where the proposed garnishee-Transfer Online-was never
even though the Utah Supreme Court in Aequitas
Enterprises was itself dealing with parties subject to
the district court's personal jurisdiction, the Utah
Supreme Court still found that the district court lacked
authority to enter an extraterritorial prejudgment writ of
attachment. The Utah Supreme Court analyzed Utah's
procedural rules for obtaining a writ of attachment-Utah R.
Civ. P. 64 (Writs in general), 64A (Prejudgment writs in
general), and 64C (Writs of attachment)-and found that the
absence of any reference in the rules to authority to issue
extraterritorial writs of attachment was intentional and
signified that no such authority exists. In the present
case, the same conclusion is warranted. The Utah rules
governing writs of garnishment contain no language
authorizing Utah courts to issue writs against out-of-state
nonparties regarding out-of-state property. The court
concludes such absence is intentional and indicates that the
court does not have authority to issue a writ of garnishment
against Transfer Online.
these reasons, the court finds Tonaquint's Application
for Writ of Garnishment is DENIED.
 CM/ECF No. 24.
 CM/ECF No. 25.