Case3:06-mc SI Document105 Filed06/03/10 Page1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Similar documents
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JUNE 12, 2003 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, Docket No cv (l), cv (CON)

Case 4:11-cv Document 102 Filed in TXSD on 09/11/12 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:16-cv JNP Document 179 Filed 03/05/19 Page 1 of 8

Case pwb Doc 1097 Filed 11/26/14 Entered 11/26/14 10:26:12 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9

Case pwb Doc 1093 Filed 11/20/14 Entered 11/20/14 11:00:52 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:11-cv RC-ALM Document 132 Filed 09/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2483

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Case 2:10-cv RLH -PAL Document 29 Filed 12/02/10 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:11-cv JEM Document 89 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:16-cv EMC Document 382 Filed 07/24/18 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Filed 11/29/12 Doc 626

Case 2:14-cv SJO-FFM Document 27 Filed 10/14/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:773

Case4:09-cv SBA Document42 Document48 Filed12/17/09 Filed02/01/10 Page1 of 7

Attorneys for Thomas F. Lennon, District Court Receiver and Responsible Natural Person for Learn Waterhouse, Inc., Debtor in Possession

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 22 Filed: 09/25/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:619

Case: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 2:15-cv MCE-CMK Document 360 Filed 01/24/17 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 8:15-cv JLS-JCG Document 150 Filed 07/25/17 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:2177 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 295 Filed 08/26/13 Page 1 of 7

Case3:15-cv VC Document25 Filed06/19/15 Page1 of 8

Case3:12-cv SI Document11 Filed07/13/12 Page1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cag Doc#413 Filed 04/02/18 Entered 04/02/18 13:54:23 Main Document Pg 1 of 8

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/04/ :48 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/04/2017

Case 3:13-cv WHO Document 90 Filed 09/20/17 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:08-cv GAF-AJW Document 253 Filed 01/06/2009 Page 1 of 6

Case Document 379 Filed in TXSB on 02/08/18 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ORDER

Case 5:08-cv RMW Document 42 Filed 06/08/2008 Page 1 of 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case: 1:03-cv Document #: 869 Filed: 09/03/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:15984

Case 2:11-cv FMO-SS Document 256 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:11349

Case 4:10-cv CW Document 730 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 371 Filed 07/03/14 Page 1 of 7

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Doc 4583 Filed 08/03/16 Entered 08/03/16 15:18:08 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case KJC Doc 597 Filed 11/17/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case Doc 1009 Filed 06/29/18 Entered 06/29/18 14:17:27 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE DIVISION

Manier et al v. Medtech Products, Inc. et al Doc. 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. - Civ

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

cag Doc#98 Filed 10/28/15 Entered 10/28/15 11:46:54 Main Document Pg 1 of 10

Gebhart v. Gaughan: Clarifying the Homestead Exemption as to Post-Petition Appreciation

Notice of Motion and Motion to Consolidate Related Actions Against

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In the Supreme Court of the United States

Case 4:15-cv MW-CAS Document 20 Filed 09/01/15 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 4 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 12

No. 107,763 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. SANFORD R. FYLER, Appellee, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Case 2:11-cv BSJ Document 210 Filed 09/13/12 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:15-mc JGK Document 26 Filed 05/11/15 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:16-cv JHM-DW Document 11 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 218

rdd Doc 202 Filed 07/29/13 Entered 07/29/13 13:51:42 Main Document Pg 1 of 13

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Debtors in a Foreign Proceeding.

Case3:13-cv SI Document28 Filed09/25/13 Page1 of 5

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the undersigned judge on the plaintiff^ State of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 4:15-cv DLH-CSM Document 5 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 11

Case 2:16-bk BB Doc 803 Filed 08/17/17 Entered 08/17/17 10:13:04 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Case 4:17-cv TSH Document 76 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:13-cv DAK Document 2 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 10

EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT. Comes Now, Carmella Macon and William Casey and moves the court to stay execution FACTS AND BACKGROUND

Case: 1:19-cv DAP Doc #: 19 Filed: 01/30/19 1 of 13. PageID #: 217 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Case3:07-cv SI Document102 Filed08/04/09 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiffs' Response to Individual Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

Case 9:14-cv DMM Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2014 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA REPLY OF MOVANT R.J. ZAYED

Case Doc 310 Filed 08/20/18 Page 1 of 9. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Greenbelt Division. Chapter 11 Debtor.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

United States Bankruptcy Court Central District of California

Case 3:16-cv EMC Document Filed 06/29/18 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:17-cv HZ Document 397 Filed 11/16/17 PageID Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY. Case No.: 42-

Case 5:11-cv LHK Document 3322 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 7

In re: ) Case No Debtor. ) MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF TRUSTEE, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR CONVERSION OF CASE

Case 3:15-cv DJH Document 19 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 984

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG 06 CVS 6776

ENTERED TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON THE COURT'S DOCKET

Case4:09-cv CW Document69 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 5

2:16-cv NGE-EAS Doc # 27 Filed 03/14/17 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case3:13-cv SI Document11 Filed03/26/13 Page1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

US Bank NA v. Maury Rosenberg

Case: 5:16-cv JRA Doc #: 8 Filed: 11/30/16 1 of 8. PageID #: 111 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CAREADVANTAGE INC Filed by NEIDICH GEORGE

Rollex Corp. v. Associated Materials, Inc. (In re Superior Siding & Window, Inc.) 14 F.3d 240 (4th Cir. 1994)

Transcription:

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. ) Henry M. Burgoyne, III (Bar No. 0) Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. ) 0 Post Street, Suite 0 San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile: () - karl@kbinternetlaw.com hank@kbinternetlaw.com jeff@kbinternetlaw.com Attorneys for Judgment Creditor DS HOLDINGS, LLC OFFICE DEPOT, INC., a Delaware corporation, vs. Plaintiff, JOHN ZUCCARINI, individually and d.b.a. COUNTRY WALK; and DOES through 0, inclusive, Defendant. DS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Judgment Creditor, JOHN ZUCCARINI, individually and d.b.a. COUNTRY WALK; and DOES through 0, inclusive, Judgment Debtor. Case No. C-0-0-SI DS HOLDINGS, LLC S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INJUNCTION FREEZING DOMAIN NAMES AND REQUEST FOR COMPLETE ACCOUNTING OF RECEIVER S ACTIONS Date: Ctrm: Judge: In Chambers 0, th Floor The Hon. Susan Illston Case No. C-0-0-SI FOR EMERGENCY INJ. FREEZING DOMAINS

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 INTRODUCTION While the details remain unclear, it appears that Michael W. Blacksburg, the post-judgment receiver in this action, inadvertently allowed the registrations for fourteen domain names to lapse. Significantly, these domain names comprise part of Zuccarini s estate and, pursuant to the Court s order, are to be sold at public auction to satisfy certain of Zuccarini s obligations, including DS Holdings, LLC ( DSH ) s judgment against Zuccarini. However, after the registrations lapsed, it appears that the domain name registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. ( Network Solutions ), sold some of the domain names to third parties in violation of the Court s preservation order. Because the Court s preservation order barred such sales, Network Solutions could not and did not transfer lawful title to these domain names. Instead, the Receiver retains lawful title to the domain names, and they should be returned to the Receiver. However, unless the Court orders the domain names to be frozen while it determines the best way by which to recover these domain names, they may be transferred out of the country and/or hidden and/or otherwise made unrecoverable. These domain names are potentially worth in excess of $,000, and this value could be applied to Zuccarini s obligations, including to DSH s judgment, with any excess to be returned to Zuccarini. If the Court does not freeze these domain names and order their return, both DSH and Zuccarini will be significantly harmed. BACKGROUND On December, 00, DSH registered in this Court a judgment issued against Zuccarini by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the Judgment ). In connection with DSH s efforts to enforce the Judgment, the Court issued a preservation and discovery order (the Preservation Order ) on February, 00. [D.E. No..] Among other things, the Preservation Order stated: Beginning as of the date this Order is entered and continuing until such time as this order is modified, superseded or vacated, neither John Zuccarini, Network Solutions, Joker.com nor any other party with actual or constructive knowledge of this Order, nor any person or entity owned or controlled by any such party, shall transfer, cause to be Case No. C-0-0-SI

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 transferred, or otherwise permit, participate in or facilitate the transfer of any domain name comprising the Domain Name Holdings. Subsequently, DSH applied for the appointment of a post-judgment receiver to collect and ultimately dispose of Zuccarini s domain name holdings, with the proceeds going toward the enforcement of the Judgment. [D.E. No..] The Court granted DSH s request and appointed Michael W. Blacksburg as a receiver (the Receiver ) [D.E. No. 0], and on November, 00, the Court issued an Order Granting Receiver s Request to Lift Preservation Order, which stated: In order to transfer control of the Domain Names from Zuccarini to the post-judgment receiver, the Preservation Order is hereby lifted for the sole purpose of transferring control of the Domain Names to Michael W. Blacksburg, as the post-judgment receiver for this matter. [D.E. No..] In addition to DSH s Judgment against Zuccarini, the Internal Revenue Service ( IRS ) has tax liens against Zuccarini. Thus, DSH has been working with the U.S. Attorney to satisfy Zuccarini s various obligations to his creditors satisfaction. Thus, in May 00 the parties stipulated to permit the United States to intervene as a party on behalf of the IRS. DSH continues to work with the U.S. Attorney to address the various issues in this action. On May, 00, before any of the domains had been auctioned off by the Receiver to satisfy the Judgment, Zuccarini notified the parties and the Receiver that seven of the domains had been sold or otherwise transferred in violation of the Court s preservation order. (Declaration of Henry M. Burgoyne, III, in Support of DS Holdings, LLC s Ex Parte Application For Emergency Temporary Injunction Freezing Domain Names And Request For Complete Accounting Of Receiver s Actions ( Burgoyne Decl. ) & Ex. A). Additionally, on May and June, Zuccarini notified the parties and Receiver that several additional domains had also been sold or otherwise transferred. (Id. - & Exs. B-C). In particular, Zuccarini said that the following names had been sold by Network Solutions through its auction service NameJet.com: govermentgrants.com Case No. C-0-0-SI

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 usgoverment.com govermentgrant.com govermentauction.com govermentauctions.com floridagovernment.com californiagovernment.com britian.com greatbritian.com dictionarys.com perscriptiondrugs.com wresteling.com wrestleing.com emailadresses.com (collectively, the Domains ) (Id. Exs. A-C.) On further inquiry, it appeared that the registrations for the Domains were inadvertently allowed to lapse, and that Network Solutions the domain name registrar for the Domains took control of the Domains and sold them to third parties. (Burgoyne Decl..) STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending the determination of the action on the merits. See Sierra Forest Legacy v. Rey, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00). The party seeking a temporary injunction must demonstrate either: ) a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or ) serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships strongly favoring the moving party. Case No. C-0-0-SI See Paramount Land Co. v. California Pistachio Comm n, F.d 00, 00 (th Cir. 00). Where a party seeks to use a temporary injunction to freeze assets, the moving party must show a likelihood of dissipation of the claimed assets or another inability to recover monetary damages if the relief is not granted. See Johnson v. Couturier, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00). // As an alternative test for a temporary injunction, the Ninth Circuit has required a plaintiff to show: () it is likely to succeed on the merits; () it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; () the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff s favor; and () an injunction is in the public interest. See Raich v. Gonzales, 00 F.d 0, - (th Cir. 00).

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 ARGUMENT DSH requests that the Court issue an emergency order preventing any additional transfer or sale of the Domains until an appropriate procedure can be fashioned to recover the Domains. Additionally, DSH requests that the Court amend its Order Denying Defendant s Motion to Stay Auction of Domain Names and Granting Defendant s Motion to Order Receiver to Provide Monthly Revenue Reports (the Revenue Report Order ) to require the Receiver to provide a detailed accounting of his actions related to this action, including: a) an accounting of the time spent on this action; b) an accounting of the Receiver s income and expenses; and c) an accounting of the status of the domain names, including the registrant, contact information, registrar, expiration date, and sold date as are applicable. A. The Court should enjoin the sale or transfer of the Domains pending investigation of the lapsed registrations. It is essential that the Court allow the Receiver to recover the Domains so that that they can be sold at public auction as previously ordered by the Court. If the Court does not freeze the Domains, they may be transferred out of the country and/or hidden and/or otherwise made unrecoverable. The Court specifically ordered any third party with actual or constructive knowledge of the Court s order not to transfer the Domains. Moreover, the Court specifically identified Network Solutions in its Preservation Order and required Network Solutions not to transfer the Domains. When the Court modified its Preservation Order, it did so for the extremely limited purpose of allowing the Domains to be transferred to the Receiver for sale by public auction. While the details remain unclear regarding the disposition of the Domains, it is evident that the disposition occurred in violation of the Court s Preservation Order. The Court has the power to freeze the Domains and provide for their recovery. Upon imposition of receivership, all property in possession of the debtor passes into the custody of the receivership court and becomes subject to the court s authority and Case No. C-0-0-SI

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 control. Thus, in exercise of jurisdiction over the debtor's property, a court has the power to issue injunctions and all other writs necessary to protect the estate from interference and to ensure its orderly administration. See Federal Trade Comm'n v. Productive Marketing, Inc., F. Supp. d 0, 0 (C.D. Cal. 00); see also Sec. & Exch. Comm n v. United Fin. Group, Inc., F.d, (th Cir. ) (court has broad equitable powers to prevent interference with administration of receivership, including using injunction to prevent transactions involving receivership property). Moreover, a receiver may proceed summarily to recover property belonging to the receivership by petition to the appointing court for an order to show cause against possessor, even though the possessor is not a party to the original action. See United States v. Arizona Fuels Corp., F.d, (th Cir. ) Here, there is no question that the transfer of the Domains was improper, and that no third party has acquired lawful title to the Domains. As Judge Alsup held, a purchaser cannot acquire lawful title to a domain name from a person who had no title to sell it. See Express Media Group, LLC v. Express Corp., No. 0-0, 00 WL, * (N.D. Cal. May 0, 00). An involuntary transfer of a domain name results in void title. Id. Thus, even a good faith purchaser cannot acquire lawful title to a domain name where the seller had no title to sell. See id; see also CRS Recover, Inc. v. Laxton, 00 F.d, (th Cir. 00) (finding that domain names are property subject to conversion and that an involuntary transfer of a domain name voids title to that domain). Moreover, Network Solutions was aware that the Receiver did not have the right to let the registrations of the Domains lapse or to otherwise dispose of the Domains, except at public auction to satisfy the Judgment. See Local Joint Executive Bd. AFL- CIO v. Hotel Circle, Inc., F.d 0, (th Cir. 0) (parties dealing with receiver are charged with knowledge of the extent of any restrictions on the receiver s authority). The only person with any title to the Domains or any authority to sell the Domains was the Receiver. See In re Global Grounds Greenery, LLC, 0 B.R., (Bankr. Case No. C-0-0-SI

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of 0 0 D. Az. 00) (receiver takes control and possession of property of debtor). Neither Network Solutions, Inc., nor any other person or entity had any title to the Domains or any authority to sell or transfer them. In fact, the Court expressly ordered Network Solutions not to transfer the Domains, except for the sole purpose of transferring control of the Domain Names to the Receiver. Thus, under the terms of the Preservation Order, Network Solutions had no lawful title to the Domains and no authority to transfer, cause to be transferred, or otherwise permit, participate in or facilitate the transfer of the Domains. Both DSH and Zuccarini will be harmed if the Court does not freeze the Domains. The Domains are worth in excess of $,000. A failure to immediately freeze the Domains may result in them being transferred to another country or hidden or otherwise made unrecoverable. Thus, in the interests of all parties, the Court should grant this emergency request and freeze the Domains. B. The Court should amend its Revenue Report Order to require the Receiver to provide a full accounting of his activities and a status report for the domains. At this time, DSH is investigating the inadvertent sale of the Domains. DSH had nothing to do with the sale of the Domains and is eager to understand how and why the sale occurred. The Domains comprise a valuable part of Zuccarini s estate, and DSH s interest in that estate will be impaired if the Domains cannot be recovered. Given this unusual posture, DSH asks the Court to order the Receiver to provide a full accounting of his activities related to this action, including a) an accounting of the time spent on this action; b) an accounting of the Receiver s income and expenses; and c) an accounting the status of the domain names, including the registrant, contact information, registrar, expiration date, and sold date as are applicable. Such an accounting is necessary for the parties and the Court to understand the status of Zuccarini s estate in the possession of the Receiver and to know what, if anything, has been improperly dissipated. Case No. C-0-0-SI

Case:0-mc-0-SI Document0 Filed0/0/0 Page of CONCLUSION For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court should freeze the Domains and set forth procedures on how to effect the return of the Domains to the Receiver. DATED: June, 00 KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP By: s/ Henry M. Burgoyne, III Henry M. Burgoyne, III 0 Attorney for Judgment Creditor, DS HOLDINGS LLC 0 Case No. C-0-0-SI