Creative American Education, LLC v. The Learning Experience Systems, LLC et al
Filing
264
ORDER granting 257 Motion to Certify Judgment. Signed by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg on 9/1/2015. (bkd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 9:14-CV-80900-ROSENBERG/BRANNON
CREATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATION, LLC,
a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
ANTHONY KORDA, an individual & KORDA,
ZITT & ASSOCIATES,
Defendants.
__________________________________________/
THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
TLE AT PARKER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, & TLE AT AURORA, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company,
Counter-plaintiffs,
v.
CREATIVE AMERICAN EDUCATION, LLC, a
Colorado Limited Liability Company,
BERNARD LOGANATHAN, an individual, &
KATIJAH BEEVE SHAIK ALUDEENLOGANATHAN a/k/a KATIJAH SHAIK ALUDEEN,
an individual,
Counter-defendants,
_____________________________________________/
BERNARD LOGANATHAN, an individual, &
KATIJAH BEEVE BINTE SHAIK ALAUDEEN,
an individual,
Counterclaim plaintiffs,
v.
THE LEARNING EXPERIENCE SYSTEMS, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company, ANTHONY
KORDA D/B/A KORDA, ZITT & ASSOCIATES, &
THE LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY KORDA, LLC,
D/B/A KORDA, ZITT & ASSOCIATES, a Florida
Limited Liability Company,
Counterclaim defendants.
_____________________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CERTIFY
JUDGMENT FOR REGISTRATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1963
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s (The Learning Experience Systems, LLC)
Motion to Certify Judgment [DE 257]. The Motion has been fully briefed. The Court has
reviewed the documents in the case file and is fully advised in the premises. For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion is granted.
Defendant requests that the Court certify the judgment in this case to three jurisdictions:
Colorado, California, and Texas. Defendant’s request is premised under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, which
reads as follows:
A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any court
of appeals, district court, bankruptcy court, or in the Court of International Trade
may be registered by filing a certified copy of the judgment in any other district or,
with respect to the Court of International Trade, in any judicial 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. Such a
judgment entered in favor of the United States may be so registered any time after
judgment is entered. A judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a
judgment of the district court of the district where registered and may be enforced
in like manner.
A plain reading of § 1963 indicates that, upon a showing of good cause, the Court may certify a
judgment for registration in another district. Plaintiff essentially argues against the plain reading
of the statute on two fronts. First, Plaintiff argues that the Court may not grant any relief for good
cause under § 1963 because a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit, Urban Industries v. Thevis,
precludes any such relief at this time. 670 F.2d 981, 985 (11th Cir. 1982). Second, Plaintiff cites
to district court decisions that hold that registration under § 1963 is premature until the time to file
an appeal has lapsed. The Court addresses each point in turn.
2
Counsel represents to the Court that Urban Industries precludes relief under the § 1963
good cause exception because that case held “that the registration of a judgment in a different
district prior to finality is invalid.” DE 262 at 4. Counsel further represents that “Urban Industries
has never been explicitly overturned.” Id. Neither point has any relevance. Urban Industries was
decided prior to the amendment of § 1963 which added the good cause exception. See Branch
Banking & Trust Co. v. Maxwell, No. 10-cv-2464, 2012 WL 3069197 (M.D. Fla. July 26, 2012)
(“Urban Industries addresses an old version of section 1963 that lacks the ‘good cause’ clause
added to the statute in 1988.”). The appellate court in Urban Industries therefore had no
opportunity to address the good cause exception in § 1963. This is obvious from both the text of
the Urban Industries decision and other cases that have considered § 1963 since the statute was
amended—which counsel cited in a footnote in his Response. See id. As an officer of the Court, it
was incumbent upon counsel to at least acknowledge that Urban Industries does not speak to the
good cause exception. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar. 4-3.3 (“A lawyer is not required to make a
disinterested exposition of the law, but must recognize the existence of pertinent legal
authorities.”) (commentary on misleading legal argument).
With respect to Plaintiff’s argument that relief under § 1963 is premature before the time to
file an appeal has lapsed, Plaintiff’s position is essentially premised upon two cases: Educational
Employees Credit Union v. Mutual Guaranty Corp.1 and Generica Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Basics,
Inc.2 Neither case is persuasive. Educational Employees was decided in light of the fact that
“[c]aselaw [was] extremely scant on the issue of the ‘good cause’ exception.” Educational
Employees, 154 F.R.D. at 235. In Generica, “no judgment had been entered” and, to the extent the
1
2
154 F.R.D. 233 (E.D. Mo. 1994).
No. 95 C 5395, 1996 WL 535321 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 1996).
3
trial court declined to certify the judgment on other grounds, the trial court provided minimal
discussion for this Court to review. Generica, 1996 WL 535321 at *10. Juxtaposed to these two
cases, which are approximately twenty years old, is a legion of recent cases that stand for the
proposition that a judgment may be registered in another jurisdiction under § 1963 prior to the
expiration of time for an appeal. See, e.g., E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc.,
No. 3:09cv058, 2012 WL 1203327, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 10, 2012) (“Having considered the
statute, its legislative history, and the applicable decisional law, the Court holds that there is no
requirement that an appeal be pending in order for the Court to authorize registration of a judgment
under § 1963.”); Spray Drift Task Force v. Burlington Bio-Medical Corp., 429 F. Supp. 2d 49, 51
(D.D.C. 2006) (“The statute itself contains no such limitation [during the pendency of an appeal] .
. . [and its] plain meaning is that a judgment may be registered when it has become final or, at any
other time, for good cause shown.”); Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Stephens, No. 04-3642, 2006 WL
2349991, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2006) (“Section 1963 does not prevent a district court from
ordering registration in other districts before either an appeal has been filed or the time for filing an
appeal has expired.”); Garden State Tanning, Inc. v. Mitchell Mfg. Group, Inc., No. 98-4789, 2000
WL 1201372, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 2000) (“[N]o appeal has been filed and the time for filing
such an appeal has not expired . . . . Since the language of § 1963 does not limit the court’s power
to order registration in other districts to the time during which an appeal is pending . . . , we will
issue such an order upon a showing of ‘good cause.’”).
The only issue that remains is whether Defendant has shown good cause. As an initial
matter, Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendant’s Motion, which prompted the Court to issue
an order to show cause. Although Plaintiff did respond to the Court’s order to show cause,
4
Plaintiff’s response does not address the merits of Defendant’s argument, instead relying upon
procedural objections. The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff has defaulted on this issue
(with respect to the merits) and has conceded the issue of good cause by virtue of Local Rule 7.1(c)
which states that a failure to respond to a motion “may be deemed sufficient cause for granting the
motion by default.”
In the alternative, the Court examines the merits of Defendant’s Motion with respect to
whether Defendant has shown good cause. The prevailing standard for establishing good cause
under § 1963 is “an assets test, essentially the absence of sufficient assets in the rendering
jurisdiction to satisfy the judgment and the presence of substantial assets elsewhere.” Branch
Banking, 2012 WL 3069197 at *1; see also Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad.
of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying an assets test to a good
cause analysis under § 1963). Here, Defendant has provided evidence that Plaintiff has no assets
in the state of Florida, but does have substantial assets in Colorado, California, and Texas. This
alone is sufficient to grant the Motion, however, the Court also notes that Defendant has provided
evidence that real property in Texas owned by Plaintiff is currently under contract for sale.
Plaintiff has provided no argument or evidence in response. The Court therefore concludes that
Defendant has shown good cause for the judgment in this case to be registered in Colorado,
California, and Texas.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant’s Motion to Certify
Judgment [DE 257] is GRANTED. The final judgment entered by this Court on August 4, 2015 is
5
hereby certified for registration in Colorado, California, and Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Pierce, Florida, this 1st day of September,
2015.
_______________________________
ROBIN L. ROSENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?