Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02656/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02656-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Skydive Arizona, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Cary Quattrocchi, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV05-2656-PHX-DGC 

ORDER 

The district court judgment in this case is on appeal. Plaintiff seeks to certify the 

judgment notwithstanding appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963. Doc. 529. Registration is 

sought in Pennsylvania, Alabama, Tennessee, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and 

Indiana. Id. at 3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have assets in and own businesses that 

operate within these jurisdictions. Id. Defendants respond that the businesses asserted by 

Plaintiff no longer operate in those jurisdictions (except Illinois), that the businesses and 

Defendants do not have assets in these states, and that Defendants Quattrocchi and 

Butler’s partnership interest in the Illinois company Cab Air, LLC is an asset in Georgia 

where the judgment is already certified. Doc. 530. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff 

has not shown any transfers of property to have been made for less than fair market value, 

and therefore any allegation of fraudulent transfers must fail. Id. at 3-4. In sum, 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not established good cause as required by § 1963. 

Plaintiff replies that it is not required to prove Defendants have assets in the target 

jurisdiction. Doc. 536 at 2. Instead, Plaintiff argues that “[w]here no supersedeas bond 

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 539 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

has been posted, ‘good cause’ may be found where there is risk . . . that the judgment 

debtor might transfer or conceal assets.” Id. (citations omitted). Plaintiff notes that 

registration is merely procedural, and that state law in each target state will govern what 

assets, if any, will ultimately be attached. Id. at 4. Plaintiff’s motion and reply cite a 

pattern of actions allegedly taken by Defendants to transfer assets and avoid paying the 

judgment. Docs. 529, 536. 

A district court may certify a judgment for registration in another district for good 

cause while the judgment is pending appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1963. “[C]ourts that have found 

good cause have generally based their decisions on an absence of assets in the judgment 

forum, coupled with the presence of substantial assets in the registration forum.” 

Columbia Pictures Television, Inc v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 259 F.3d 1186, 

1197-98 (9th Cir. 2001); accord Chicago Downs Ass’n v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 372 n.3 

(7th Cir. 1991) (approving the principle that a “mere showing” of substantial property in 

the registration state is sufficient).

On June 18, 2010, this Court held that the judgment in this case will not be stayed 

pending appeal, found that Defendants have engaged in suspicious transactions and have 

taken contradictory positions concerning their financial health, and concluded that there 

was a lack of documentary evidence as to Defendants’ finances. Doc. 469. The Court 

also certified the judgment for registration in Georgia, where the Court found Defendants’ 

assets primarily were located. Id. at 7. The Court also stated: “In light of Defendants’ 

[previous] lack of candor in their business operations and contradictory representations 

concerning their finances, the Court is especially unprepared to merely take Defendant 

Butler’s unsubstantiated word concerning the value of the building or his ownership of it.” 

Id. at 5. The fact that almost a year later Plaintiff still has been unable to collect on the 

judgment suggests that, absent a certification of registration, Plaintiff’s attempts to collect 

will continue being thwarted. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have assets in and own businesses that operate 

within the states mentioned above. Doc. 529 at 3. Defendants’ response provides little 

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 539 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

more than unsubstantiated assertions that the businesses no longer operate in these 

jurisdictions, that assets transferred to other parties were conveyed at fair market value, 

and that some of the businesses have no remaining assets. In light of Defendants’ 

credibility issues and the undisputed transfers of assets that occurred, the Court holds that 

Plaintiff has shown good cause for certifying the judgment for registration in the states 

requested. 

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Skydive Arizona, Inc.’s motion (Doc. 529) to 

certify the Final Judgment entered in this case on April 16, 2010 (Doc. 447) for 

registration in the district courts for the following states: Pennsylvania, Alabama, 

Tennessee, New Jersey, Texas, California, Illinois, and Indiana. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT shall 

prepare and execute the following: 

1. An original of the form AO451 (Clerk’s Certification of a Judgment to be 

Registered in Another District) for each district court in which the judgment 

is to be registered; and 

2. An original Exemplification Certificate of the Final Judgment for each 

district court in which the judgment is to be registered. 

 Dated this 2nd day of May, 2011. 

Case 2:05-cv-02656-DGC Document 539 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 3