Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 14, 2025

Javelin Global Commodities Ltd. v. Lexington Coal Company, LLC

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:21-cv-00787
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Javelin Global Commodities v. Lexington Coal, Judge Hellerstein allowed registration of a judgment in Kentucky and West Virginia.

Who this affects

Javelin Global Commodities (UK) Ltd. and Bluegrass Commodities, LP may register their judgment against Lexington Coal Company, LLC in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Southern District of West Virginia.

What happened

Javelin Global Commodities (UK) Ltd. and Bluegrass Commodities, LP asked to register their judgment against Lexington Coal Company, LLC in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Southern District of West Virginia. The judgment had been entered on November 5, 2024, and Lexington had appealed it.

The court explained that a judgment being appealed may be registered in another federal district for good cause. The plaintiffs showed that Lexington had no property in the Southern District of New York, while its principal place of business was in the Eastern District of Kentucky and it was registered to do business and owned property in the Southern District of West Virginia.

Judge Hellerstein held that the plaintiffs had shown good cause and granted their motion to register the judgment in both districts. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Javelin Global Commodities Ltd. v. Lexington Coal Company, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-00787
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Jan. 14, 2025

Background

Javelin Global Commodities (UK) Ltd. and Bluegrass Commodities, LP obtained a judgment against Lexington Coal Company, LLC, which the court entered on November 5, 2024. Lexington filed a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 to register the judgment in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Southern District of West Virginia.

Legal standard

Section 1963 allows a judgment for the recovery of money or property to be registered in another federal district after it becomes final by appeal or the expiration of the appeal period. When the judgment has been appealed, the court that entered it may allow registration in another district for good cause. The court stated that good cause may be shown by establishing that the judgment debtor has substantial property in the other district and insufficient property in the district where the judgment was entered. It also stated that a creditor need not provide exact evidence of the debtor’s assets when locating property in another district is difficult.

Court’s reasoning

The court found that the plaintiffs had shown good cause. They showed that Lexington was not registered to do business in New York and that New York had no coal mines or coal reserves, supporting the conclusion that Lexington did not have property in the Southern District of New York. They also showed that Lexington’s principal place of business was in the Eastern District of Kentucky and that Lexington was registered to do business and owned property in the Southern District of West Virginia. The court found it reasonable to infer that the plaintiffs might be able to enforce the judgment in those districts.

Disposition

Judge Hellerstein granted the plaintiffs’ motion to register the judgment. The plaintiffs may file the judgment in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Southern District of West Virginia. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, identified as ECF No. 130.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.