Skydive Arizona, Inc. vs. Quattrochi, et al.

Filing 539

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 529 motion to certify the Final Judgment entered in this case on 04/16/10 (Doc. 447) for registration in the district courts for the following states: Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and Indiana; THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT shall prepare and execute the following: An original of the form AO451 for each district court in which the judgment is to be registered; and An original Exemplification Certificate of the Final Judgment for each district court in which the judgment is to be registered. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 05/02/11. (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Skydive Arizona, Inc.,

9

Case No. CV05-2656-PHX-DGC

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

ORDER

vs.
Cary Quattrocchi, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

The district court judgment in this case is on appeal. Plaintiff seeks to certify the

16

judgment notwithstanding appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Doc. 529. Registration is

17

sought in Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and

18

Indiana. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have assets in and own businesses that

19

operate within these jurisdictions. Id. Defendants respond that the businesses asserted by

20

Plaintiff no longer operate in those jurisdictions (except Illinois), that the businesses and

21

Defendants do not have assets in these states, and that Defendants Quattrocchi and

22

Butler’s partnership interest in the Illinois company Cab Air, LLC is an asset in Georgia

23

where the judgment is already certified. Doc. 530. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff

24

has not shown any transfers of property to have been made for less than fair market value,

25

and therefore any allegation of fraudulent transfers must fail.

26

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not established good cause as required by § 1963.

Id. at 3-4.

In sum,

27

Plaintiff replies that it is not required to prove Defendants have assets in the target

28

jurisdiction. Doc. 536 at 2. Instead, Plaintiff argues that “[w]here no supersedeas bond

1

has been posted, ‘good cause’ may be found where there is risk . . . that the judgment

2

debtor might transfer or conceal assets.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff notes that

3

registration is merely procedural, and that state law in each target state will govern what

4

assets, if any, will ultimately be attached. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s motion and reply cite a

5

pattern of actions allegedly taken by Defendants to transfer assets and avoid paying the

6

judgment. Docs. 529, 536.

7

A district court may certify a judgment for registration in another district for good

8

cause while the judgment is pending appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1963. “[C]ourts that have found

9

good cause have generally based their decisions on an absence of assets in the judgment

10

forum, coupled with the presence of substantial assets in the registration forum.”

11

Columbia Pictures Television, Inc v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186,

12

1197-98 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Chicago Downs Ass’n v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 372 n.3

13

(7th Cir. 1991) (approving the principle that a “mere showing” of substantial property in

14

the registration state is sufficient).

15

On June 18, 2010, this Court held that the judgment in this case will not be stayed

16

pending appeal, found that Defendants have engaged in suspicious transactions and have

17

taken contradictory positions concerning their financial health, and concluded that there

18

was a lack of documentary evidence as to Defendants’ finances. Doc. 469. The Court

19

also certified the judgment for registration in Georgia, where the Court found Defendants’

20

assets primarily were located. Id. at 7. The Court also stated: “In light of Defendants’

21

[previous] lack of candor in their business operations and contradictory representations

22

concerning their finances, the Court is especially unprepared to merely take Defendant

23

Butler’s unsubstantiated word concerning the value of the building or his ownership of it.”

24

Id. at 5. The fact that almost a year later Plaintiff still has been unable to collect on the

25

judgment suggests that, absent a certification of registration, Plaintiff’s attempts to collect

26

will continue being thwarted.

27

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have assets in and own businesses that operate

28

within the states mentioned above. Doc. 529 at 3. Defendants’ response provides little
2

1

more than unsubstantiated assertions that the businesses no longer operate in these

2

jurisdictions, that assets transferred to other parties were conveyed at fair market value,

3

and that some of the businesses have no remaining assets.

4

credibility issues and the undisputed transfers of assets that occurred, the Court holds that

5

Plaintiff has shown good cause for certifying the judgment for registration in the states

6

requested.

In light of Defendants’

7

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Skydive Arizona, Inc.’s motion (Doc. 529) to

8

certify the Final Judgment entered in this case on April 16, 2010 (Doc. 447) for

9

registration in the district courts for the following states: Pennsylvania, Alabama,

10
11
12
13

Tennessee, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and Indiana.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT shall
prepare and execute the following:
1.

An original of the form AO451 (Clerk’s Certification of a Judgment to be

14

Registered in Another District) for each district court in which the judgment

15

is to be registered; and

16

2.

An original Exemplification Certificate of the Final Judgment for each

17

district court in which the judgment is to be registered.

18

Dated this 2nd day of May, 2011.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3