## Facts

- A federal district court entered a money judgment against John Zuccarini for $100,000 plus $5,600 in attorney’s fees.
- Office Depot assigned its rights to collect on the judgment, including interest, to DS Holdings, LLC.
- DS Holdings sought to enforce the judgment against Zuccarini’s substantial portfolio of internet domain names, which it asserted could be sold to satisfy the debt.
- The Northern District of California issued a writ of execution and entered orders requiring production and preservation of documents relating to Zuccarini’s domain name holdings.
- A prior request for a direct order compelling nonparty registrars to turn over the domain names was denied as procedurally improper.
- DS Holdings filed an ex parte application to appoint a receiver to take control of the domain names and arrange their sale.
- Relevant domain name registry/registrar entities (including a registry administering common top-level domains) maintained records determining domain name existence and ownership and were located in, or had connections to, the Northern District of California.

## Issues

1. Whether internet domain names constitute property interests subject to levy and execution under post-judgment enforcement procedures.
2. Where a domain name is deemed to be “located” for purposes of execution and a court’s authority to supervise levy.
3. Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and applicable state enforcement remedies, the court could appoint a receiver to take control of and sell the domain names to satisfy the judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted DS Holdings’ application and appointed a receiver.
- The court held that domain names are intangible property subject to levy and execution.
- The court determined that, for enforcement purposes, a domain name exists at the location of both its registrar and its registry, making the Northern District of California an appropriate forum to oversee levy where such entities were located.
- The receiver was authorized to take control of the domain name registrations, preserve the assets, and facilitate transfer and auction/sale, with proceeds applied to the judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a), post-judgment execution in federal court proceeds using the enforcement procedures of the forum state, including equitable remedies such as receivership when appropriate to effect execution.
- Domain names may be treated as intangible property interests subject to post-judgment levy and sale.
- For purposes of jurisdiction and execution, a domain name’s situs may be identified at both the registrar and the registry that maintain and control the authoritative records of registration and ownership.
- Receivership may be used to administer and transfer technically managed intangible assets when standard execution mechanisms are ineffective or procedurally inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court allowed judgment enforcement against a debtor’s domain name portfolio by appointing a receiver, treating domain names as executable intangible property and locating them at both the registrar and registry to support the court’s supervision of levy and sale.


Office Depot, Inc. v. Zuccarini, 621 F. Supp. 2d 773 (N.D. Cal. 2007)