Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69774, 621 F. Supp. 2d 773, 2007 WL 2688460 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of executing a money judgment, an internet domain name is considered intangible property that has its legal situs in the judicial district where its domain name registry is located, in addition to the location of its registrar.
Facts:
- Office Depot obtained a money judgment for over $100,000 against John Zuccarini.
- Zuccarini owned a substantial portfolio of internet domain names, including those with .com and .net top-level domains.
- Office Depot assigned its right to collect on the judgment to DS Holdings, LLC.
- The central registry for all .com and .net domain names, VeriSign, Inc., is located in the Northern District of California.
- The specific registrars that Zuccarini used to register his domain names are located outside of the Northern District of California, in places such as Virginia, Germany, Washington, and Israel.
- DS Holdings sought to levy upon Zuccarini's domain names to satisfy the outstanding judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a money judgment for Office Depot against John Zuccarini.
- DS Holdings, as assignee of the judgment, registered the judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
- The Northern District of California court issued a Writ of Execution of Judgment.
- The court previously denied DS Holdings' request for a turnover order that would have required third-party registrars to hand over the domain names.
- DS Holdings filed the current ex parte application with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking the appointment of a receiver to facilitate the seizure and sale of the domain names. Zuccarini opposed the application.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For the purpose of executing a money judgment under California law, is the judicial district where a domain name's central registry is located a proper venue to levy upon the domain name, even if the debtor's specific registrars are located in other jurisdictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Illston, District Judge
Yes. The judicial district where a domain name's registry is located is a proper venue to levy upon the domain name. First, the court, citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Kremen v. Cohen, affirmed that domain names constitute intangible property under California law and are therefore subject to a writ of execution to satisfy a money judgment. The central question then became determining the physical location, or situs, of this intangible property. The court looked to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) for guidance, which provides that for in rem actions, a domain name's situs is in the judicial district where either the registrar or the registry is located. While acknowledging the practical argument that registrars handle day-to-day ownership changes, the court reasoned that the registry maintains the definitive and ultimate records of domain name existence and ownership. Therefore, following the logic of the ACPA, the court concluded that a domain name's situs exists in both the location of the registrar and the registry, making the Northern District of California, home to the VeriSign registry, an appropriate venue to oversee the levy.
Analysis:
This decision provides critical clarity on the 'metaphysical question' of where intangible digital assets like domain names are legally located for purposes of judgment enforcement. By establishing that the situs of a domain name can be the location of its central registry, the court created a significant precedent that simplifies the process for judgment creditors. This prevents debtors from shielding valuable domain name portfolios by using registrars scattered across various jurisdictions, as creditors can now target the centralized registry. The ruling strengthens the characterization of domain names as tangible, seizable property and provides a practical roadmap for their execution in post-judgment proceedings.
Unlock the full brief for Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini