AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 253

ORDER that 190 Motion For Leave to Register Sanctions Award Order in Foreign Districts is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/23/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
AEVOE CORP.,

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to register sanctions in another jurisdiction.

10
Plaintiff,
11
vs.
12
AE TECH. CO., et al.,
13
Defendants.

Case No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REGISTER SANCTIONS
(Docket No. 190)

16

Docket No. 190. Defendant AE Tech (“Defendant”) filed a response and Plaintiff filed a reply.

17

Docket Nos. 194, 200. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without a hearing. See Local

18

Rule 78-2. Having reviewed the materials submitted and for the reasons stated below, the motion is

19

hereby DENIED.

20

Plaintiff seeks to register sanctions awarded on November 27, 2012 that remain unpaid

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. See Mot. at 2. The only challenge to the motion provided by

22

Defendant in opposition is that Plaintiff failed to identify the registration forum at issue or to

23

sufficiently establish the existence of assets in any forum. See Response at 3-5.1 For registration of

24

a judgment to be proper, the movant must establish “the presence of substantial assets in the

25
26
27
28

1

Defendant’s opposition fails to address any other aspect of the motion and the Court takes that
silence as acquiescence that the motion is proper in all other respects. See Newdow v. Congress of the
United States of America, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1066, 1070 n.5 (E.D. Cal. 2006), aff’d sub nom., Newdow v.
Lefevre, 598 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Local Rule 7-2(d).

1

registration forum.” See, e.g., Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Broadcasting of

2

Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 1198 (9th Cir. 2001).

3

Plaintiff’s motion seeks leave to register the sanctions award “in foreign districts . . . where

4

AE Tech has customers or where other assets can be located.” Mot. at 4; see also id. at 3 (“good

5

cause exists to allow Aevoe to register the judgment in foreign U.S. districts”). Plaintiff specifies in

6

reply that it seeks leave to register the sanctions award in New Jersey, Minnesota, New York and

7

Florida. See Reply at 2.2 Plaintiff presented some evidence that AE Tech has customers based in

8

those four states. See Oh Decl. ¶ 5 (Docket No. 191). But Plaintiff cites no authority that the mere

9

fact that customers are based in a jurisdiction is sufficient to show the existence of “substantial

10

assets” there for purposes of registering a judgment.3 Although the Court has some “leeway” in

11

finding good cause, based on the papers before it, the Court declines to find Defendant has

12

“substantial assets” in the specified jurisdictions.

13

For the first time in reply, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court requiring Defendant to

14

testify at a judgment debtor examination. See Reply at 6. Because the issue was not raised in the

15

moving papers, the Court declines to address it. See Bazuaye v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir.

16

1996) (per curiam) (declining to address issue raised for the first time in reply brief).

17

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion to register sanctions is DENIED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: April 23, 2013

20

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Ordinarily, the Court would find significant Defendant’s failure to dispute that property exists
in a particular jurisdiction. See Columbia Pictures, 259 F.3d at 1198. In this instance, however, the
motion was not sufficiently clear as to the jurisdictions at issue to enable Defendant to dispute the
existence of property in those jurisdictions.
3

The reply brief cites two cases for the proposition that “the Court [may find] that AE Tech has
substantial assets in the districts where its customers are located.” See Reply at 3 (citing In Re Tabiban,
289 F.2d 793, 796 (2d Cir. 1961) and Howard v. United States, 711 F.2d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1983)).
Neither of these cases involves registering a judgment and neither infers the existence of substantial
assets based on a customer being based in a particular state.
2