Celtic Marine Corporation v. James C. Justice Companies, Inc.

Filing 198

ORDER & REASONS: granting 189 Motion for Order Permitting Registration of Judgment for Enforcement in Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 9/15/14. (sek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CELTIC MARINE CORPORATION

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-3005

JAMES C. JUSTICE COMPANIES,
INC.

SECTION: "J”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Celtic Marine Corporation (Celtic)'s
Motion

for

Order

Permitting

Registration

of

Judgment

for

Enforcement in Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina (Rec. Doc.
189), an Opposition (Rec. Doc. 192) by James C. Justice Co.
(Justice)

,

and

Celtic's

Reply.

(Rec.

Doc.

197).

Having

considered the motion and memoranda of counsel, the record, and
the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be
GRANTED for the reasons set forth more fully below.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND FACTS
This litigation commenced when Celtic filed suit against
Justice for breach of contract in 2011, which resulted in two
partial judgments from this Court in favor of Celtic dated March
6, 2014, and May 28, 2014.1 (Rec. Docs. 145, 177) Justice filed
three appeals from this Court's judgments, but has not posted any

1

The Court is well-acquainted with the facts of this matter, thus only the
pertinent facts are summarized. For a more thorough recitation of the facts, see
the Court's Order and Reasons dated September 18, 2013. (Rec. Doc. 104)

1

supersedeas

bonds

to

obtain

stays

of

this

Court's

judgments

during the pendency of the appeals. (Rec. Doc. 189-1, p. 2)
Seeking to enforce the Court's judgments in its favor, on
June 30, 2014, Celtic moved this Court for an order permitting
registration of the March 6, 2014 (Rec. Doc. 145) and May 28,
2014

(Rec.

Doc.

177)

judgments

in

the

district

courts

of

"Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina, as well as
other states" in which Justice has assets. (Rec. Doc. 186) The
Court

granted

Celtic's

motion

in

part,

permitting

Celtic

to

register the judgment in West Virginia. The Court denied the
motion in other respects, however, finding that Celtic failed to
show good cause to register the judgment in the other states.
(Rec. Doc. 188)
On July 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court's summary judgment in favor of
Celtic. (Rec. Docs. 193, 197) Justice's two other appeals remain
pending in the Fifth Circuit, however, and the cases are set for
hearing in late October 2014. (Rec. Doc. 197, pp. 1-2)
Celtic, still wishing to enforce this Court's judgments in
its

favor,

reurged

its

Motion

for

an

Order

Permitting

Registration of the Judgment in Kentucky, Virginia, and South
Carolina. (Rec. Docs. 189) Justice opposed the motion (Rec. Doc.

2

192), and this Court granted Celtic leave to file a reply. (Rec.
Docs. 196-97)
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, a judgment creditor may register a
district court's judgment for the recovery of money or property
"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." Id. Although the statute does not
define "good cause," "[c]ourts have interpreted [it to require]
'a mere showing that the defendant has substantial property in
the other [foreign] district and insufficient [property] in the
rendering

district

Halberstadt,

Inc.

v.

to

satisfy

Nike,

Inc.,

the
No.

judgment.'"

Hockerson-

CIV.A.91-1720,

2002

WL

511542, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 3, 2002) (citing Jack Frost Labs.,
Inc. v. Physicians & Nurses Mfg. Corp., 951 F. Supp. 51, 52
(S.D.N.Y. 1997)). The judgment creditor may make the requisite
"showing" of good cause by asserting in its motion that the
judgment debtor lacks assets in the rendering district and has
substantial assets in the registering district. See Chicago Downs
Ass'n, Inc. v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 373 (7th Cir. 1991)(finding
that, in the absence of a bond, the moving party's assertions in
its motion as to a lack of assets in the rendering district and

3

substantial

property

in

other

districts

constituted

"good

cause"); Lear Siegler Servs. v. Ensil Int'l Corp., No. SA-05-CV679-XR, 2010 WL 2594872, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 23, 2010). A
judgment debtor's refusal to post a supersedeas bond further
supports the existence of good cause. See id.; Henckels & McCoy,
Inc. v. Adochio, No. Civ. 94-3958, 1997 WL 535800, at *2 (E.D.
Pa. July 31, 1997). A court's decision of whether there exists
good cause to allow registration of a judgment not yet final by
appeal

lies

in

the

court's

discretion.

Karaha

Bodas

Co.

v.

Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negrara, No. Civ.A.
H01-0634,

2002

WL

32107930,

at

*1

(S.D.

Tex.

Feb.

20,

2002)(citing Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broad.
of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2001)).
DISCUSSION
Celtic moves the Court to permit registration of its March
6, 2014, and May 28, 2014, judgments in the district courts of
Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina. Celtic argues that good
cause exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 because Justice failed to
post the supersedeas bond to obtain a stay of any of this Court's
judgments against them; a search revealed no assets of Justice in
Louisiana; and the search "located substantial assets of Justice
in Virginia and South Carolina" and assets of Justice's daughter

4

company, Kentucky Fuel Corporation (KFC), in Kentucky.
In opposition, Justice asserts that the Court lacks good
cause. Justice stresses the general rule that only judgments that
have become final

by appeal or by expiration of the time for

appeal may be registered for enforcement in other districts.
Justice argues that the only exception to this rule, the "good
cause" exception, does not apply here because Celtic has not
shown that Justice possesses substantial assets in Virginia and
South Carolina and the assets of Justice's affiliated entity,
KFC, in Kentucky are irrelevant to the instant motion.
The Court finds that there exists good cause to permit
Celtic to register the March 6, 2014, and May 28, 2014, judgments
in Virginia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. First, Celtic asserts
that Justice lacks assets in the rendering district, Louisiana.
(Rec.

Doc.

189,

p.

3)

Second,

Celtic

attests

to

Justice's

substantial assets in the registering districts of Virginia and
South

Carolina

as

well

as

the

substantial

assets

of

KFC

in

Kentucky. Id. at 2-3. Justice does not refute these assertions.
Instead, Justice argues that the statements Celtic provides in
its motion regarding Justice's and KFC's substantial assets do
not meet the standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1963. However, as the
Court noted in its July 17, 2014, Order and Reasons (Rec. Doc.

5

188), that is not the case. See Chicago Downs Ass'n, Inc. v.
Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 371-72 (7th Cir. 1991). And although it is
true

that

it

is

KFC

that

possesses

substantial

assets

in

Kentucky, this Court held KFC jointly liable with Justice for the
sums owed to Celtic as a result of the March 6, 2014, and May 28,
2014, judgments. (13-6538, Rec. Doc. 59, pp. 10-11) Finally,
Justice has not posted supersedeas bonds with relation to any of
its appeals.2 Therefore, this Court will exercise its discretion
to permit Celtic to register its March 6, 2014, and May 28, 2014,
judgments in Virginia, South Carolina, and Kentucky.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Celtic Marine Corporation's Motion for
Order

Permitting

Registration

of

Judgment

for

Enforcement

in

Kentucky, Virginia, and South Carolina (Rec. Doc. 189) is hereby
GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of September, 2014.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

For a more thorough discussion of the relevancy of a party's failure to
post bond, see this Court's July 17, 2014, Order and Reasons. (Rec. Doc. 188)

6