Knox v. Millennia Tax Relief LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01458
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

Lester L. Knox, Jr., ) No. CV-23-01458-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) Millennia Tax Relief LLC, ) 12 ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 )

15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reassign Judgment to Original Creditor. 16 (Doc. 29). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion will be denied. 17 On January 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion 18 for Default Judgment against Defendant Millenia Tax Relief LLC and awarded Plaintiff 19 $20,405 in actual damages. (Doc. 26). Plaintiff asserts that on or around April 17, 2024, 20 Plaintiff assigned the judgment to Landmark Collection Services, Inc. (“Landmark”) for 21 collection purposes. (Doc. 29 at 1). Plaintiff alleges that Landmark subsequently failed to 22 respond to communications with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and 23 is no longer in business. (Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that because Landmark has closed, 24 Plaintiff is unable to enforce the judgment. (Id.). Thus, Plaintiff filed the present Motion 25 requesting the Court reassign the judgment back to Plaintiff. (Id.). 26 Here, Landmark is not a party to this case, and the Court lacks the requisite authority 27 to effectuate Plaintiff’s request. “Without a proper basis for jurisdiction, or in the absence 28 of proper service of process, the district court has no power to render any judgment against 1 the defendant’s person or property unless the defendant has consented to jurisdiction or 2 waived the lack of process.” S.E.C. v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1138–39 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 Because Plaintiff did not serve Landmark, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the 4 entity and will not attempt to determine its rights. See Bradford v. Bracamonte, 3:20-CV- 5 0213-WQH-WVG, 2020 WL 7625106, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020) (“Because 6 Defendants have not been served, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over them, 7 and will not attempt to determine their rights.”); Atkins v. Calypso Sys. Inc., CV-14-02706- 8 PHX-NVW, 2015 WL 1508415, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2015) (“Service of process is the 9 mechanism by which the court [actually] acquires the power to enforce a judgment against 10 the defendant’s person or property. In other words, service of process is the means by which 11 a court asserts its jurisdiction over the person.”). 12 Moreover, as the relief Plaintiff apparently seeks from Landmark constitutes a 13 different cause of action than the underlying suit against Defendant—which involved 14 claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227—and apparently 15 aims to replace the Defendant with Landmark, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this 16 Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the action. To that end, Article III of the 17 United States Constitution’s “case-or-controversy requirement demands that, through all 18 stages of federal judicial proceedings, the parties continue to have personal stake in the 19 outcome of the lawsuit.” United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2001). 20 Here, as the current action has been adjudicated against Defendant Millenia Tax Relief 21 LLC and subsequently terminated, there is no active case or controversy between the 22 parties for this Court to adjudicate. Should Plaintiff believe he has a claim against 23 Landmark, Plaintiff should file a lawsuit in the appropriate court bringing his cause or 24 causes of action against Landmark. Accordingly, 25 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Lester L. Knox, Jr.’s Motion to Reassign Judgment 26 to Original Creditor is denied. 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case remains closed. 2 Dated this 13th day of May, 2025. 3 4 5 COGS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28