Nikola Corporation v. Milton

D. Arizona

Nikola Corporation v. Milton

DecidedMay 16, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-02635

StatusUnknown

This text of Nikola Corporation v. Milton (Nikola Corporation v. Milton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nikola Corporation v. Milton, (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Nikola Corporation, No. CV-23-02635-PHX-DJH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Trevor R Milton,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner Nikola Corporation’s (“Nikola”) Motion for an 16 Order Certifying Judgment for Registration for Good Cause Shown Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1963 (the “Motion”). (Doc. 52). Citing the terms of a protective order entered into 18 between the parties in Nikola v. Milton, Case No. 2:24-cv-00563-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz.) at 19 Doc. 49, and in compliance with the Local Rules of this district, Nikola lodged its Motion 20 and attached exhibits, including an Asset List, under seal (Doc. 52) and filed a Notice of 21 Confidential Document Designation (Doc. 54). See LRCiv 5.6(d). Defendant Trevor 22 Milton (“Milton”) filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. 57) and Nikola filed a Reply. 23 (Doc. 58). Nikola also filed a Motion to Expedite Consideration (Doc. 59) of its pending 24 motion on May 14, 2025. 25 I. Background 26 On November 4, 2024, this Court entered an Amended Judgment in favor of 27 Nikola for approximately $167.7 million in damages plus pre-judgment and post- 28 judgment interest. (Doc. 37). On December 3, 2024, Milton filed an Amended Notice of 1 Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 50). Milton has not sought a stay of execution or 2 otherwise posted a bond or security since the Court entered its Amended Judgment on 3 November 4, 2024. Nikola now seeks an Order certifying the Amended Judgment for 4 registration in other judicial districts; namely the District of Utah, District of Wyoming, 5 District of Nevada, and the District of Delaware (collectively the “Registration 6 Districts”). For support, Nikola points to the sealed Asset List that shows Milton lacks 7 assets in this judicial district to satisfy the full judgment amount and owns assets in the 8 other Registration Districts. (Doc. 52 at 6). 9 II. Legal Standard 10 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), a judgment of a United States 11 District Court becomes final and enforceable ten days after judgment is entered. 12 Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(a). At that time, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to execute upon a 13 judgment.1 Pending appeal, however, the judgment is only enforceable in the district in 14 which it was rendered, unless the judgment is “registered” in another district by court 15 order. 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (2001). The registration process is set forth in 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1963, which provides in relevant part: 17 A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any [ ] district court . . . may be registered 18 by filing a certified copy of the judgment in any other district [ ], . . . when the judgment has become final by appeal or 19 expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown . . . A 20 judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered 21 and may be enforced in like manner. 22 Id. (emphasis added). Section 1963 thus permits a district court to issue an order 23 certifying a judgment for registration during the pendency of an appeal upon a finding of 24 “good cause.” Id. Although there is no Ninth Circuit law defining “good cause,” “the 25 courts that have found good cause have generally based their decisions on an absence of 26 assets in the judgment forum, coupled with the presence of substantial assets in the 27

28 1 Pending appeal, Milton could have obtained a formal stay of the judgment by posting a supersedeas bond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Milton did not do so. 1 registration forum.” Dyll v. Adams, 1998 WL 60541 at *1 (N.D.Tex. 1998); Johns v. 2 Rozet, 143 F.R.D. 11, (D.D.C. 1992); Chicago Downs Ass’n, Inc. v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 3 372 (7th Cir. 1991); Graco Children’s Prods., Inc. v. Century Prods. Co., 1996 WL 4 421966, at *36 (E.D.Pa. 1996); Bingham v. Zolt, 823 F.Supp. 1126, 1136 5 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff’d, 66 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1995). 6 III. Analysis 7 The Court is satisfied that Nikola has shown good cause why an Order certifying 8 the Amended Judgment should register in the District of Utah, District of Wyoming, 9 District of Nevada, and the District of Delaware.2 Although Milton does not have an 10 “absence of assets” in Arizona, the one asset he does have—a home—is insufficient to 11 cover the large judgment amount against him. Notably, Milton does not dispute that his 12 asset in Arizona would not be able to meet the full judgment amount. Instead, he takes 13 issue with the Court relying on the Asset List attached to Nikola’s Motion to find good 14 cause for certification of the judgment in the Registration Districts. (Doc. 57 at 3–5). 15 The Court rejects this argument. The Court gave Nikola permission to use the Asset List 16 in connection with executing the Amended Judgment in its previous Order, including its 17 efforts to register the Amended Judgment in other judicial districts. See Nikola v. Milton, 18 Case No. 2:24-cv-00563-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz) at Doc. 72 (allowing Nikola to use the asset 19 list to enforce the Amended Judgment against Milton). This is exactly what Nikola is 20 seeking to do: execute the Amended Judgment. Moreover, Nikola properly lodged its 21 Motion and the referenced Asset List under seal.3

22 2 Nikola also asks this Court to register the judgment in “any judicial district.” (Doc. 52 at 10). The Court refuses to do so. Nikola has shown good cause why judgment should 23 be registered in the districts of Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Delaware. It has not done the same for “any judicial district.” 24 3 Nikola notes in its Reply that Milton failed to file a motion to seal and a supporting 25 memorandum setting forth the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the Asset List under seal by the December 31, 2024, deadline. See LRCiv 5.6(d) (party seeking to 26 seal lodged document must file motion to seal and supporting memorandum “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after service of the notice [of lodging]”). Nikola also notes that this is 27 not the first time that Milton has failed to take the necessary precautions to shield information he maintains should be limited to attorneys’ eyes only. The Court tends to 28 agree. Though at this juncture, it will not direct the Clerk to make Nikola’s Motion and exhibits part of the public docket, Milton is on notice that failure to take such precautions 1 The Asset List shows that Milton has substantial assets in Utah, Wyoming, || Nevada, and Delaware that may be used to satisfy the Amended Judgment, including || significant property, real and personal, in Wyoming and Utah, about 100,000 Nikola 4|| shares in Delaware, and significant ownership interests in business entities in Nevada. 5|| (Doc. 52 at 7). Based on the above, the Court grants Nikola’s Motion for an Order 6|| Certifying Judgment for Registration in the Districts of Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Delaware. 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file Nikola’s Motion for an Order || Certifying Judgment for Registration (Doc. 52) under seal. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion (Doc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Nikola Corporation, No. CV-23-02635-PHX-DJH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Trevor R Milton,

13 Respondent. 14 15 Before the Court is Petitioner Nikola Corporation’s (“Nikola”) Motion for an 16 Order Certifying Judgment for Registration for Good Cause Shown Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1963 (the “Motion”). (Doc. 52). Citing the terms of a protective order entered into 18 between the parties in Nikola v. Milton, Case No. 2:24-cv-00563-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz.) at 19 Doc. 49, and in compliance with the Local Rules of this district, Nikola lodged its Motion 20 and attached exhibits, including an Asset List, under seal (Doc. 52) and filed a Notice of 21 Confidential Document Designation (Doc. 54). See LRCiv 5.6(d). Defendant Trevor 22 Milton (“Milton”) filed a Response to the Motion (Doc. 57) and Nikola filed a Reply. 23 (Doc. 58). Nikola also filed a Motion to Expedite Consideration (Doc. 59) of its pending 24 motion on May 14, 2025. 25 I. Background 26 On November 4, 2024, this Court entered an Amended Judgment in favor of 27 Nikola for approximately $167.7 million in damages plus pre-judgment and post- 28 judgment interest. (Doc. 37). On December 3, 2024, Milton filed an Amended Notice of 1 Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 50). Milton has not sought a stay of execution or 2 otherwise posted a bond or security since the Court entered its Amended Judgment on 3 November 4, 2024. Nikola now seeks an Order certifying the Amended Judgment for 4 registration in other judicial districts; namely the District of Utah, District of Wyoming, 5 District of Nevada, and the District of Delaware (collectively the “Registration 6 Districts”). For support, Nikola points to the sealed Asset List that shows Milton lacks 7 assets in this judicial district to satisfy the full judgment amount and owns assets in the 8 other Registration Districts. (Doc. 52 at 6). 9 II. Legal Standard 10 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), a judgment of a United States 11 District Court becomes final and enforceable ten days after judgment is entered. 12 Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(a). At that time, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to execute upon a 13 judgment.1 Pending appeal, however, the judgment is only enforceable in the district in 14 which it was rendered, unless the judgment is “registered” in another district by court 15 order. 28 U.S.C. § 1963 (2001). The registration process is set forth in 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1963, which provides in relevant part: 17 A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered in any [ ] district court . . . may be registered 18 by filing a certified copy of the judgment in any other district [ ], . . . when the judgment has become final by appeal or 19 expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown . . . A 20 judgment so registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district court of the district where registered 21 and may be enforced in like manner. 22 Id. (emphasis added). Section 1963 thus permits a district court to issue an order 23 certifying a judgment for registration during the pendency of an appeal upon a finding of 24 “good cause.” Id. Although there is no Ninth Circuit law defining “good cause,” “the 25 courts that have found good cause have generally based their decisions on an absence of 26 assets in the judgment forum, coupled with the presence of substantial assets in the 27

28 1 Pending appeal, Milton could have obtained a formal stay of the judgment by posting a supersedeas bond. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Milton did not do so. 1 registration forum.” Dyll v. Adams, 1998 WL 60541 at *1 (N.D.Tex. 1998); Johns v. 2 Rozet, 143 F.R.D. 11, (D.D.C. 1992); Chicago Downs Ass’n, Inc. v. Chase, 944 F.2d 366, 3 372 (7th Cir. 1991); Graco Children’s Prods., Inc. v. Century Prods. Co., 1996 WL 4 421966, at *36 (E.D.Pa. 1996); Bingham v. Zolt, 823 F.Supp. 1126, 1136 5 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff’d, 66 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1995). 6 III. Analysis 7 The Court is satisfied that Nikola has shown good cause why an Order certifying 8 the Amended Judgment should register in the District of Utah, District of Wyoming, 9 District of Nevada, and the District of Delaware.2 Although Milton does not have an 10 “absence of assets” in Arizona, the one asset he does have—a home—is insufficient to 11 cover the large judgment amount against him. Notably, Milton does not dispute that his 12 asset in Arizona would not be able to meet the full judgment amount. Instead, he takes 13 issue with the Court relying on the Asset List attached to Nikola’s Motion to find good 14 cause for certification of the judgment in the Registration Districts. (Doc. 57 at 3–5). 15 The Court rejects this argument. The Court gave Nikola permission to use the Asset List 16 in connection with executing the Amended Judgment in its previous Order, including its 17 efforts to register the Amended Judgment in other judicial districts. See Nikola v. Milton, 18 Case No. 2:24-cv-00563-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz) at Doc. 72 (allowing Nikola to use the asset 19 list to enforce the Amended Judgment against Milton). This is exactly what Nikola is 20 seeking to do: execute the Amended Judgment. Moreover, Nikola properly lodged its 21 Motion and the referenced Asset List under seal.3

22 2 Nikola also asks this Court to register the judgment in “any judicial district.” (Doc. 52 at 10). The Court refuses to do so. Nikola has shown good cause why judgment should 23 be registered in the districts of Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Delaware. It has not done the same for “any judicial district.” 24 3 Nikola notes in its Reply that Milton failed to file a motion to seal and a supporting 25 memorandum setting forth the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the Asset List under seal by the December 31, 2024, deadline. See LRCiv 5.6(d) (party seeking to 26 seal lodged document must file motion to seal and supporting memorandum “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after service of the notice [of lodging]”). Nikola also notes that this is 27 not the first time that Milton has failed to take the necessary precautions to shield information he maintains should be limited to attorneys’ eyes only. The Court tends to 28 agree. Though at this juncture, it will not direct the Clerk to make Nikola’s Motion and exhibits part of the public docket, Milton is on notice that failure to take such precautions 1 The Asset List shows that Milton has substantial assets in Utah, Wyoming, || Nevada, and Delaware that may be used to satisfy the Amended Judgment, including || significant property, real and personal, in Wyoming and Utah, about 100,000 Nikola 4|| shares in Delaware, and significant ownership interests in business entities in Nevada. 5|| (Doc. 52 at 7). Based on the above, the Court grants Nikola’s Motion for an Order 6|| Certifying Judgment for Registration in the Districts of Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, and Delaware. 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file Nikola’s Motion for an Order || Certifying Judgment for Registration (Doc. 52) under seal. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion (Doc. 52) is granted and an Order Certifying the Amended Judgment may register in the following districts: District of 13 || Utah, District of Wyoming, District of Nevada, and the District of Delaware. 14 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Nikola’s Motion to Withdraw its Motion to 15 | Expedite Consideration of Pending Motion for an Order Certifying Judgment for Registration (Doc. 63) is granted and the Motion to Expedite Consideration of Pending Motion for an Order Certifying Judgment for Registration (Doc. 59) shall be terminated. 18 Dated this 15th day of May, 2025. 19 20 oC. . pga _ 21 norable’Dian¢g4. Hurietewa 09 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 in the future may be considered a concession that such information may be made publicly available. Because this Order contains only generalized information regarding Milton’s 28 assets, it will not be filed under seal.

-4-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nikola Corporation v. Milton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nikola-corporation-v-milton-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack