United States District Court, S.D. New York
November 5, 2004.
VICTOR P. MUSKIN, P.C., Plaintiff,
RAYMOND E.B. KETCHUM and CEA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: KEVIN FOX, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In a memorandum and order, dated October 20, 2004 ("October
20th Order"), the Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter a
default judgment against defendant Raymond E.B. Ketchum
("Ketchum"). In addition, the Court declined to entertain an
application by plaintiff Victor P. Muskin, P.C. ("Muskin"), that
it be permitted to register the default judgment immediately in
other judicial districts ("registration application"). Muskin has
submitted a letter to the Court, renewing its registration
application, and clarifying that the application is made pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1963.*fn1 Muskin notes, as well, that the
Clerk of Court entered a default judgment against both Ketchum
and defendant CEA Financial Group ("CEA"), and Muskin has
requested that the judgment be modified to reflect that it is
against Ketchum only.
Immediate Registration in Other Judicial Districts
In pertinent part, 28 U.S.C. § 1963 provides that "[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." Good cause is established upon a showing that the party
against whom the judgment has been entered: (a) has substantial
property in another judicial district; and (b) has insufficient
property in the judicial district in which the judgment was
entered to satisfy the judgment. See Owen v. Soundview
Financial Group, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 278, 278-79 (S.D.N.Y.
1999). A court may rely on affidavits and other documentary
evidence in order to determine whether good cause has been shown.
See, e.g., id. at 279. However, good cause is not
established by the mere fact that a defendant resides in another
judicial district. See Bingham v. Zolt, 823 F. Supp. 1126,
1136 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
In this action, the only competent evidence submitted in
support of the registration application is the declaration of
Victor P. Muskin, counsel to the plaintiff. In that declaration,
Mr. Muskin states that "based upon information provided by
Defendant Ketchum, . . . although Ketchum possesses assets
located in another district from which the judgment could be
satisfied, he is or may be about to encumber or dispose of such
assets prior to satisfying his obligation to Plaintiff." This
establishes that Ketchum has substantial property in another
judicial district. However, Muskin has not submitted any
competent evidence to show that Ketchum has insufficient property
in this judicial district to satisfy the judgment. Accordingly,
Muskin has not shown good cause, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1963,
for the Court to grant the registration application. Therefore,
the registration application must be denied. Modification of Default Judgment
The October 20th Order directed the Clerk of Court to enter a
default judgment against Ketchum only, and did not address the
part of Muskin's default judgment application that applied to
CEA. Accordingly, the default judgment should be modified to
reflect that it is against Ketchum only.
For the reasons set forth above: (1) Muskin's application,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963, is denied; and (2) the Clerk of
Court is directed to modify the default judgment, entered on
October 20, 2004, to reflect that it is against Ketchum only.