VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC et al v. WHITCHURCH et al

Filing 285

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 6/1/16. 6/1/16 ENTERED AND COPIES EMAILED.(rf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VIZANT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
JULIE P. WHITCHURCH, et al.

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 15-431

MEMORANDUM
Bartle, J.

June 1, 2016
Plaintiffs Vizant Technologies, LLC (“Vizant) and

Joseph Bizzarro (“Bizzarro) have filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1963 seeking an order to allow the registration in the state of
Georgia of certain judgments entered against defendant Julie P.
Whitchurch in this Court.

Defendant has not opposed this motion.

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendant
Julie P. Whitchurch on July 7, 2015 for $29,200 as a result of a
finding of the court that she was in civil contempt.

On March

22, 2016, after a damages trial, the court entered a judgment in
favor of plaintiff Vizant and against Julie P. Whitchurch for
$2,256,427.12 and a judgment in favor of plaintiff Bizzarro and
against Julie P. Whitchurch for $500,000.

All of those judgments

are on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

Defendant has not filed a supersedeas bond to stay

enforcement of any judgment.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).

Plaintiffs now seek to have this court authorize the
registration of the March 22, 2016 judgments in the state of

Georgia where defendant Julie P. Whitchurch is a resident.

Under

28 U.S.C. § 1963, this court may enter an order allowing for the
registration of a judgment in another 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.” (Emphasis added).
As noted above, Julie P. Whitchurch resides in the
state of Georgia, specifically in Woodstock in the Northern
District of Georgia.

To the extent she has assets, it is likely

they are located in that state.

As far as is known, she has no

assets in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania or in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, she has not filed a

supersedeas bond which would stay execution pending appeal.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).

See

Plaintiffs have shown good cause for this

court to allow registration of the judgments in Georgia.

See,

e.g., Great Am. Ins. Co. V. Stephens, 2006 WL 2349991, at *2
(E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2006); Schreiber v. Kellogg, 839 F. Supp.
1157, 1159 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

-2-