DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction This is an action for breach of contract brought by Xerox Corporation (“Xerox” or “Plaintiff”) against JCTB Incorporated (“JCTB”), Shirley Bui (“Bui”), and Jimmy Caudillo, a/k/a Jaime Caudillo (“Caudillo”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Presently before the Court are Defendants’ First Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Judgment (“Stay Motion”) (Docket No. 28) and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Authorizing Registration of the Judgment (“Register Judgment Motion”) (Docket No. 27). For the reasons discussed below, the Stay Motion is denied and the Register Judgment Motion is granted. II. Procedural Status In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserted four counts: (1) breach of an equipment finance lease agreement; (2) breach of a promissory note; (3) breach of a guaranty agreement; and (4) a declaration entitling it to retake possession of the leased equipment. On November 2, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s pre-discovery Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss Counterclaims (Docket No. 17), and dismissed Defendants’ counterclaims with prejudice. Plaintiff was granted judgment as a matter of law on Counts I through III of the Complaint, entitling it to a total compensatory damages award of $806,019.26 on those counts. The Court further awarded declaratory judgment to Plaintiff on Count IV, entitling it to immediately retake possession of the Leased Equipment as identified more particularly in the Complaint. Also on November 2, 2018, the Court entered the Judgment, which stated, “Plaintiff is granted summary judgment on Counts I through III of the Complaint and is entitled to a total compensatory damages award of $806,019.26 on those counts.” (Docket No. 24). Defendants then filed a Notice of Appeal on November 28, 2018 (Docket No. 25). Their brief was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 13, 2019. Xerox now has filed a Motion for an Order Authorizing Registration of Judgment in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1963 (Docket No. 28). Xerox asserts that Defendants have neither obtained a supersedeas bond nor paid any portion of the damages, and an asset search reveals that all of Defendants’ assets are located in California. Accordingly, Xerox argues, good cause exists for Xerox to immediately register the Judgment in the Central District of California. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s request to authorize registration of the judgment in the Central District of California. Instead, they filed a Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Judgment’s award of money damages pending the conclusion of their appeal. Plaintiff has opposed Defendants’ motion to stay. III. Discussion A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Register the Judgment Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1963 permits a judgment of a district court to be registered in any other federal district “when the judgment has become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown.” 28 U.S.C. §1963). “A district court has jurisdiction to consider a motion to certify pursuant to Section 1963, irrespective of a pending appeal.” Coudert v. Hokin, No. 12 CIV. 110 (ALC), 2018 WL 4278332, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2018) (citing Woodward & Dickerson v. Kahn, No. 89-CV-6733 (PKL), 1993 WL 106129, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 1993)). “Good cause” is demonstrated upon “a mere showing that the [party against whom the judgment has been entered] has substantial property in the other [foreign] district and insufficient [property] in the rendering district to satisfy the judgment.” Jack Frost Laboratories, Inc. v. Physicians & Nurses Manufacturing Corp., 951 F. Supp. 51, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (quoting Woodward & Dickerson, 1993 WL 106129, at *1 (emphasis and brackets in original; further quotation and citations omitted)); accord Owen v. Soundview Fin. Grp., Inc., 71 F. Supp.2d 278, 278-79 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “Exact evidence of the debtor’s assets is not necessary[.]” Coudert, 2018 WL 4278332, at *2 (citing Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Adelanto Pub. Util. Auth., No. 09-CV-5087(JFK), 2014 WL 2893306, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 26, 2014)). Indeed, “ good cause” can be shown in the absence of an asset search. See Coudert, 2018 WL 4278332, at *3 (“[W]hile an asset search might be a common and expeditious way of sufficiently demonstrating the existence of such assets, no case that Plaintiff cites — and the Court is aware of none — suggests that an asset search is, in fact, necessary…. [M]ere property records, or a showing…that Defendant is gainfully employed in another district, may suffice.”) (citing Owen, 71 F. Supp.2d at 279 (unrebutted property records and sworn testimony sufficient to show cause for purposes of Section 1963)). Moreover, “[i]n the absence of contrary evidence, the affidavit in support of the judgment creditor’s motion should be presumed to be true.” Owen, 71 F. Supp.2d at 279 (citing AT&T Corp. v. Pub. Ser. Enterp. of Pa., Inc., No. 98CIV6133LAP, 1999 WL 672543, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 1999) (in the absence of any objections or contrary evidence by debtor, accepting as true the sworn affidavit of the creditor’s attorney and granting motion pursuant to Section 1963). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit from Janet Atkinson (“Atkinson Aff.”) (Docket No. 27-1), an employee in its Recovery Department. As exhibits to her affidavit, Atkinson has attached excerpts from asset search reports conducted in regards to Defendants. See Docket No. 27-1, Exhibits (“Exs.”) A & B. These reports reveal that none of the Defendants has any assets in New York. See Atkinson Aff.
