Rockin Artwork, LLC v. Bravado, Inc et al
ORDER granting Defendant Bravado International Group MerchandisingServices, Inc.'s 146 Motion for order allowing registration of judgment. The Court ORDERS that Defendants shall be allowed to register the Court's judgment in any other jurisdictions where Rockin's assets may be found, including California and Nevada. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ROCKIN ARTWORK, LLC,
CASE NO. C15-1492-JCC
SERVICES, INC., a
California corporation; AUTHENTIC
HENDRIX, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; and EXPERIENCE
HENDRIX, a Washington limited
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for registration of judgment by
20 Defendants Bravado International Group Merchandising Services, Inc., Authentic Hendrix, LLC,
21 and Experience Hendrix, LLC (Dkt. No. 146). Defendants seek to register the Court’s judgment
22 in other jurisdictions, in particular California and Nevada. (Id. at 1-2.)
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a), a district court judgment becomes final and enforceable 10
24 days after entry of judgment. At that time, the prevailing plaintiff is entitled to execute upon the
PAGE - 1
Authentic and Experience joined Bravado’s motion. (See Dkt. No. 147.)
1 judgment. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc. v. Krypton Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 259
2 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2001). “Pending appeal, however, the judgment is only enforceable in
3 the district in which it was rendered, unless the judgment is ‘registered’ in another district by
4 court order.” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1963). Section 1963 provides:
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. . . . 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 likely absence of assets in this jurisdiction, coupled with a likelihood that there are recoverable
assets in another jurisdiction, is generally sufficient to show good cause for registration
elsewhere. Columbia Pictures, 259 F.3d at 1197-98. Other factors supporting good cause include
whether registering the judgment elsewhere may help prevent the debtor from transferring or
concealing property while the matter is on appeal, and whether the debtor posted a supersedeas
bond. See Chicago Downs Ass’n, Inc. v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 371-72 (7th Cir. 1991).
Here, the evidence suggests that Rockin’s assets are likely held in California or Nevada.
Rockin’s complaint states that it is a Nevada limited liability company “with its principle [sic]
place of business located in Nevada and California and with minimum business contacts in the
state of Washington.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Rockin’s business address is in Los Angeles. (Dkt. No.
75-6 at 2.) Rockin has two owners: Andrew Pitsicalis and Leon Hendrix. (Id. at 3.) Pitsicalis
resides in Los Angeles. (Dkt. No. 79-4 at 1.) Although Rockin’s counsel claimed Hendrix was a
resident of Washington, (Dkt. No. 63 at 3), Hendrix himself has never submitted any sworn
declaration. Rather, the available evidence suggests that Hendrix resides and has an office in Los
Angeles. (See Dkt. No. 146 at 2.) Rockin’s principal licensing agent appears to be located in
California. (Dkt. No. 75 at 2.) Rockin’s accountant is located in California. (Dkt. No. 103 at 9;
Dkt. No. 111 at 1.). Defendants know of no evidence that Rockin has assets in Washington.
PAGE - 2
Defendants argue that, in light of this evidence, as well as the fact that Rockin has not
2 filed a supersedeas bond, registration of judgment in other jurisdictions is appropriate. (Dkt. No.
3 146 at 3.) Defendants fear that otherwise “Rockin will attempt to drain or hide its assets while
4 the appeal is pending.” (Id.)
Rockin failed to respond to Defendants’ motion. The Court considers this “as an
6 admission that the motion has merit.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(b)(2).
Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants has made a sufficient showing that:
(1) Rockin is unlikely to have sufficient (if any) assets in Washington;
(2) Rockin’s assets are likely located in California and Nevada; and
(3) Rockin has not filed any supersedeas bond, and given its behavior in this case, there
11 is a danger that Rockin will transfer assets or otherwise try to render itself immune from
12 collection during the pendency of its appeal.
Defendants’ motion (Dkt. No. 146) is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that Defendants
14 shall be allowed to register the Court’s judgment in any other jurisdictions where Rockin’s assets
15 may be found, including California and Nevada
DATED this 4th day of April 2017.
John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PAGE - 3
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?