revival has expired because the judgment has been dormant for more than two years; (2) Midwest failed to properly serve the motion upon the O’Connors and Pipex; (8) the execution proceedings were dismissed with prejudice, preventing Midwest from again bringing the same or similar proceeding in this court; (4) the settlement agreement was breached by Midwest; and (5) James P. O’Connor’s death precludes revival as to the judgment against him. Because the court finds that the time for revival is determinative on this issue, it will not discuss the various other arguments. II. DISCUSSION In matters of aiding execution of judgments, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defer to the laws of the state in which the Federal District Court sits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 69(a); McCarthy, 35 F.Supp.2d at 847 (<HOLDING>), aff’d, 172 F.3d 63 (10th Cir.1999) (table).
holding that judgment on the pleadings will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that there are no material issues of fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that pursuant to rule 69a revival of a judgment is relief available to a judgment holder that he or she may pursue by complying with state law holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment recognizing that motion for relief from judgment may be properly filed pursuant to rule 1540b3 where party induced witness to commit perjury holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law