IO Group, Inc. v. Antelope Media, LLC

Filing 126

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on July 28, 2010. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2010)

Download PDF
IO Group, Inc. v. Antelope Media, LLC Doc. 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Before the Court is plaintiff IO Group, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application for Turnover Order in Aid of Execution, filed July 20, 2010. In its application, plaintiff, a judgment creditor, seeks an order directing judgment debtors to turn over to plaintiff directly certain domain names registered to judgment debtors. Plaintiff relies on 699.040 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, applicable to the instant action pursuant to Rule 69(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The relief sought by plaintiff, however, is unavailable under 699.040, California's "general turnover statute." See Palacio Del Mar Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. McMahon, 174 Cal. App. 4th 1386, 1391 (2009). Specifically, 699.040 "does not allow a turnover to the judgment creditor," but only to a "levying officer." See id. Moreover, 699.040 "limits itself to tangible property," and "[d]omain name registration[s]" constitute intangible property. See id. (holding judgment creditor "cannot rely" on 699.040 in seeking turnover of domain v. ANTELOPE MEDIA, LLC, et al., Defendants / IO GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, No. C-08-4050 MMC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TURNOVER ORDER United States District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 name registrations). Accordingly, the application is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 28, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 2