Superior Consulting Services, Inc. v. Steeves-Kiss

Filing 78

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 75 Motion TO REGISTER THE JUDGMENT IN FLORIDA FEDERAL COURT(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
SUPERIOR CONSULTING SERVICES,
INC.,

7
8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

JENNIFER L STEEVES-KISS,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.17-cv-06059-EMC (JSC)
ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO REGISTER THE JUDGMENT IN
FLORIDA FEDERAL COURT
Re: Dkt. No. 75

Defendant.

12
The district court ordered Plaintiff’s counsel, Watson LLP, to pay $110,799.50 in

13
14

attorney’s fees as Rule 11 sanctions. (Dkt. Nos. 43 & 54.) Plaintiff appealed from that order, and

15

that appeal remains pending.1 (See Dkt. No. 45.) Defendant then moved for a judgment debtor’s

16

examination, (Dkt. No. 57), which was referred to this Court and subsequently granted, (Dkt. Nos.

17

58 & 73). A judgment debtor’s examination held on October 11, 2018 revealed that Watson LLP

18

held no assets in California and instead, held assets only in Florida. (See Dkt. Nos. 74 & 75-1 at ¶

19

6.) Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for an order permitting registration of

20

the judgment in Florida Federal Court “as security against further improper behavior on the part of

21

Watson LLP.” (Dkt. No. 75 at 3.) After careful consideration of the parties briefing, the Court

22

concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), vacates the January

23

17, 2019 hearing, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion.
DISCUSSION

24

Pending appeal, a “judgment is only enforceable in the district in which it was rendered,

25
26

unless the judgment is ‘registered’ in another district by court order.” Columbia Pictures

27
28

1

Plaintiff did not post a supersedeas bond for a stay pending appeal. (See Dkt. Nos. 75-1 at ¶ 4 &
76 at 2.)

1

Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2001)

2

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1963). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963:

3

5

A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered
in any . . . district court . . . may be registered by filing a certified copy
of the judgment in any other district . . . when the judgment has
become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when
ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown.

6

“Section 1963 thus permits a district court to issue an order certifying a judgment for

7

registration during the pendency of an appeal upon a finding of ‘good cause.’” Columbia Pictures

8

Television, Inc., 259 F.3d at 1197. Defendant argues that the “good cause” requirement is

9

satisfied here. The Court agrees.

4

Although the Ninth Circuit has not defined “good cause” for purposes of Section 1963, it

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

has recognized that district courts “that have found good cause have generally based their

12

decisions on” two factors: (1) “the absence of assets in the judgment forum”; and (2) “the presence

13

of substantial assets in the registration forum.” Id. Here, Plaintiff concedes that “Watson LLP has

14

no assets within the jurisdictional reach of the United States District for the Northern District of

15

California.” (Dkt. No. 76 at 3.) The first element of the good cause requirement is therefore

16

satisfied. Plaintiff insists, however, that Watson LLP’s assets in Florida are not “substantial” and

17

thus “based on strict reading of Columbia Pictures Television, the good cause standard has not

18

been met.”2 (Dkt. No. 76 at 3.) Plaintiff provides no further argument or authority regarding its

19

reading of Columbia Pictures Television or what constitutes “substantial assets.” The Court is not

20

convinced.
It is undisputed that during the October 2018 examination Watson LLP identified no other

21
22

assets except those located in Florida. Specifically, Watson LLP identified: (1) a checking

23

account with a Florida bank containing approximately $45,000; (2) and a “main [office] and

24

headquarters” located in Orlando, Florida.3 (See Dkt. No. 75-6, Ex. E at 3-6.) It is obvious to the

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff argues that “the assets are not even half of the judgment amount and are certainly
insufficient to satisfy the judgment, based on the portion of the transcript [of the debtor’s
examination] that Defendant attached to its motion.” (Dkt. No. 76 at 3.)
3
Watson LLP does not own the real property that contains its main office and headquarters;
instead, it leases the property. There is no indication, however, that Watson LLP does not own
personal property associated with that location.
2
2

1

Court that a forum containing all of a judgment debtor’s identifiable assets satisfies the

2

“substantial assets” prong of the good cause requirement recognized by the Ninth Circuit; indeed,

3

it would make no sense to conclude otherwise.
CONCLUSION

4
5

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to register the

6

judgment in Florida Federal Court. Defendant has shown good cause as the evidence

7

demonstrates that Watson LLP lacks any assets in the Northern District of California, and

8

possesses assets only in Orlando, Florida. Accordingly, Defendant may register the judgment in

9

the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
This Order disposes of Docket No. 75.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: January 4, 2019

13
14
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3