## Facts

- Office Depot obtained a federal money judgment against John Zuccarini under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act after his registration of a typo-squatted domain name (“offic-depot.com”).
- Office Depot assigned the judgment to DS Holdings, LLC, which sought to collect after Office Depot was unable to do so.
- DS Holdings discovered Zuccarini owned hundreds of domain names, including more than 190 “.com” names.
- The “.com” registry was maintained by VeriSign, headquartered in Mountain View, California, within the Northern District of California.
- DS Holdings registered the original judgment in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 and pursued enforcement there by levying on Zuccarini’s “.com” domain names.
- The district court issued a preservation order, authorized discovery, and appointed a receiver to take control of and auction certain domain names to satisfy the judgment.
- Zuccarini appealed, arguing the Northern District of California was not a proper forum to levy on his domain names because he did not reside there and lacked traditional tangible property in the district.

## Issues

1. Whether, under California judgment-enforcement law, internet domain names constitute intangible property subject to levy and sale under a writ of execution.
2. Where “.com” domain names are deemed “located” for purposes of quasi in rem jurisdiction in post-judgment enforcement proceedings.
3. Whether the district court had authority to appoint a receiver to control and auction the domain names to satisfy the registered judgment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s enforcement order and receiver appointment.
- The court held that domain names are intangible property subject to execution under California law.
- The court held that, for quasi in rem jurisdiction in this enforcement context, “.com” domain names are located where the registry is located—here, in the Northern District of California.
- Because the domain names were deemed located in the district, the levy and receiver appointment to facilitate sale were authorized.

## Legal Principles

- Under California enforcement law, a judgment debtor’s transferable interest in a domain name is intangible property that may be reached by writ of execution to satisfy a money judgment.
- For quasi in rem jurisdiction in judgment enforcement against “.com” domain names, the situs of the domain name is the location of the authoritative registry maintaining the domain-name records.
- When the property’s situs is within the enforcing court’s district, the court may use enforcement tools, including appointment of a receiver, to preserve, control, and sell the property to satisfy the judgment.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld post-judgment collection against “.com” domain names by treating them as executable intangible property and locating them, for quasi in rem jurisdiction, at the registry’s headquarters, thereby validating levy and a receiver-led auction to satisfy the judgment.


Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2010)