On December 27, 2019, in Caballero v. Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that federal courts may register only federal court judgments, not state court judgments, under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 ( (10th Cir. Dec. 27, 2019)).

Plaintiff, Antonio Caballero, obtained a $190 million civil judgment against the defendants in a Florida state court. He then filed an action in the US District Court for the District of Utah alleging that the defendants were drug traffickers who murdered his father and were trafficking millions of dollars of drugs through Utah. Plaintiff requested that the Utah district court enter a "judgment on a judgment" under 28 U.S.C. § 1738 so that he could use the federal process to collect on his judgment against the defendants in Utah.

The district court instead registered plaintiff's judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 and denied all other relief because he had not demonstrated that the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under FRCP 59(e). The district court denied the motion, and plaintiff appealed.

The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Section 1963 only permits federal courts to register a federal court judgment, not a state court judgment. The court noted a circuit split on the issue. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held Section 1963 does not prohibit registration of a state court judgment in federal court (GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., 718 F.3d 615, 625 (7th Cir. 2013)), while the Second Circuit held that Section 1963 requires a litigant to file a new court action to enforce a judgment entered by a non-federal court (Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 2017)). The Tenth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in reasoning that the express language of Section 1963 does not permit a federal court to register a state court judgment. The Tenth Circuit also found that plaintiff's state court judgment could not be registered under Section 1738 because that statute did not provide an independent basis for the district court's jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit explained that plaintiff was required to file an action in federal court showing the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute to enforce his state court judgment. The court therefore remanded the case to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint accordingly.