Teleport Mobility, Inc. v. Sywula
- Susan Illston
- 3:21-cv-00874
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Teleport Mobility v. Sywula, Judge Illston referred a post-judgment stock inquiry to a magistrate judge and vacated the scheduled hearing.
The ruling affects Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC as judgment creditors, Krzysztof Sywula as the judgment debtor, and the magistrate judge who will conduct the examination. It postpones a decision on whether Sywula's shares can be turned over to satisfy the judgment.
What happened
In Teleport Mobility, Inc. v. Krzysztof Sywula, the plaintiffs sought an order requiring Sywula to turn over shares they said he held in Intel Corporation and ByteDance Inc. The court had entered judgment against Sywula for an arbitration award of $1,500,000 and issued a writ of execution for $1,521,583.56.
The plaintiffs argued that a court order was needed because they did not know the location or form of the shares. Sywula said he did not own Intel or ByteDance Inc. shares, although he acknowledged owning vested shares in ByteDance Ltd. He also argued that transfer restrictions and the foreign company's control prevented turnover.
Judge Susan Illston did not decide whether Sywula owned the shares or whether they could be turned over. She referred the matter to a magistrate judge for an examination to determine the nature and location of Sywula's stock, and she vacated the September 19, 2025 hearing.
The detailed version
- Teleport Mobility, Inc. v. Sywula · No. 3:21-cv-00874
- Susan Illston
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
Teleport Mobility, Inc. and Northern Lights, LLC sued Krzysztof Sywula in 2021, alleging violations of federal trademark and trade-secrets laws and several state laws. The court later compelled arbitration and stayed the case. In March 2025, the court confirmed an arbitration award against Sywula for $1,500,000 and entered judgment on that award. Sywula appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In July 2025, the court issued a writ of execution for Santa Clara County in the amount of $1,521,583.56.
The requested turnover order
The judgment creditors asked the court to require Sywula to turn over all shares he held in Intel Corporation and ByteDance Inc. They also asked for an order requiring him to appear and show that he had complied. Alternatively, they asked for additional time to conduct post-judgment discovery about Sywula's ownership of the shares.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 generally applies state law to enforcing a money judgment. The court explained that, under California law, a creditor may seek a turnover order upon a showing of need. A creditor may also examine the judgment debtor to obtain information that will help enforce the judgment.
The parties' positions
The judgment creditors argued that only Sywula knew the location and form of the stock certificates, making an ordinary levy impractical. Sywula responded that the motion did not identify property he currently owned. He said he had sold his Intel shares around 2002 and did not own shares in ByteDance Inc., but acknowledged owning vested shares in ByteDance Ltd.
Sywula also argued that transfer restrictions in a Restricted Share Unit Award Agreement prevented turnover of the ByteDance Ltd. shares. The agreement excerpt submitted to the court was heavily redacted, including the exceptions to the transfer restrictions. Sywula further argued that the court lacked authority to order turnover of shares controlled by ByteDance Ltd., which he identified as a Cayman Islands corporation.
Court's action
The court found that more was unknown than known about Sywula's current stock ownership. It therefore referred the matter to a magistrate judge for a judgment debtor's examination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 708.110. The examination was intended to determine the nature and location of Sywula's stock.
The court did not decide whether Sywula owned Intel, ByteDance Inc., or ByteDance Ltd. shares, whether any shares could be enforced against, or whether the requested turnover order should issue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and General Order No. 42, the court referred the matter to a magistrate judge and vacated the September 19, 2025 hearing.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.