Before the Court en banc. Opinion by Cherry.
This is an appeal related to the enforcement of a California judgment in Nevada based on the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”) codified in NRS 17.330-400. The Court found that penal judgments are exempted from the requirements of the UEFJA and are, therefore, not entitled to full faith and credit under Nevada’s UEFJA. The determination of whether a judgment is considered penal rests on whether the statute provides civil penalties for an offense against the public or whether the statute creates a right of action to compensate a private person or entity.
Oakland obtained a judgment against Desert Outdoor for violating a municipal code prohibiting the erection of sign advertising a business not located on the property on which the sign was erected. The judgment was obtained under the California Business and Professions Code section 5485, which provided penalties for advertising displays posted in violation of local ordinances. Thereafter, Oakland filed its judgment in the Second Judicial District Court. The Nevada UEFJA states that a foreign judgment which is entitled to full faith and credit in Nevada is treated as a domestic judgment. Citing to Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 (1892), the Court reiterated that the courts of one state cannot execute the penal laws of another. Oakland unsuccessfully argued that Huntington was superseded by the UEFJA. The Court found that Oakland’s penal judgment against Desert Outdoor fell outside the scope of the UEFJA because it was not entitled to full faith and credit in Nevada. The Court determined that the California legislature’s intent in creating the applicable penalties was to address public wrongs, not private harms. Oakland was not a private entity enforcing a civil right. (Joseph P. Schrage, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson)
