Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 91-1720, Ref: No. 96-3160.
April 3, 2002
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Order Permitting Registration of Judgment for Enforcement in Other Districts. Plaintiff seeks to register this Court's judgment "in the Western District of Washington . . . and in district courts in Florida, Maryland, and other states in which Propet's assets may be found . . . ." Defendant, Propet, opposes the motion and asserts that registration in other districts would violate an Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which temporarily stayed execution of the judgment. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENTED.
28 U.S.C. § 1963 governs the registration of judgments in the district courts. The statute provides that "[a] judgment in an action for recovery of money or property entered in any district court . . . may be registered by filing a certified copy of such judgment in any other district . . . when the judgment has become final by appeal or by expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown." See 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
In this case, both parties have appealed the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, registration of the judgment in other district courts is possible only upon a court order after a finding of "good cause." Plaintiff asserts that such "good cause" is present in this case because the Defendant has indicated it cannot post an appeal bond and registration in other districts "will aid HHI in enforcement of the judgment."
Courts have interpreted "good cause" as "a mere showing that the defendant has substantial property in the other [foreign] district and insufficient [property] in the rendering district to satisfy the judgment." See Jack Frost Labs., Inc. v. Physicians Nurses Mfg. Corp., 951 F. Supp. 51, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); see also Henckels McCoy, Inc. v. Adochio, No. Civ. 94-3958, 1997 WL 535800, at *2 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 1997) ("In cases in which the judgment debtor has no assets in the judgment district, but has assets in another district and refuses to post supersedeas bond, there is good cause to register the judgment for the purposes of transferring it into the district where the property is located.").
In this case, however, Plaintiff makes no showing that the Defendant actually has substantial property in other districts or insufficient property in this district. Plaintiff sweepingly asserts that registration in other districts "will aid HHI in enforcement of judgment" but offers no proof of these alleged assets. The Court finds that this one-sentence argument does not adequately demonstrate "good cause" to warrant registration of this judgment in other districts. See, e.g., Jack Frost, 951 F. Supp. at 52 (denying, in part, motion to register judgment in certain districts because Plaintiff had not presented evidence of Defendant's assets in those districts).
The Court also recognizes that the Federal Circuit has issued an Order, dated March 14, 2002, temporarily staying the execution of this judgment. Plaintiff minimizes the significance of this Order, arguing that the Order stays only "enforcement" and registration is "merely preparatory to enforcement." The Court notes, however, that if enforcement of the judgment is stayed, registration would likely be unnecessary, and Plaintiff's motion premature.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.