Troy J Dugan v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 286

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Defendants' Ex Parte Application to Stay Execution of Judgment 280 is DENIED. However, this denial is without prejudice to the application being renewed in conjunction with: (1) a showing tha t execution of the punitive damages portion of the judgment would result in defendants suffering irreparable harm; and (2) appropriate assurances from defendant that they will not dissipate their assets during the pendency of the appeal. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Case No.

2:11-cv-08145-CAS-SHx

Title

TROY J. DUGAN V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 2, 2014

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION
TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT (Dkt. #280, filed June
30, 2014)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Troy Dugan filed this action on September 30, 2011. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff
filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on December 12, 2011. Dkt. #9.
The FAC asserted claims for violations of plaintiff’s constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against defendants Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department (“LACS”), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputies Christopher Nance, and
Brett Binder, Sergeant John Stanley, and other personnel employed by the Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department. Id.
Following a stipulated dismissal of several defendants, including Los Angeles
County, the case was tried to a jury in July and August 2013 against Deputy Brett Binder
(“Binder”), former LACS Deputy Christopher Nance (“Nance”), and LACS Sergeant
John Stanley (“Stanley”). Plaintiff asserted claims for excessive force and unlawful
arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Nance and Binder, and asserted a claim
for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all three defendants. Dkt.
#200. The jury returned a special verdict in favor of plaintiff, and awarded $850,000 in
compensatory damages. Id. In a separate punitive damages phase of the trial, the jury
awarded $50,000 against each defendant. Dkt. #215. By order dated December 16,
2013, the Court denied defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a
new trial. Dkt. #229.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:11-cv-08145-CAS-SHx

July 2, 2014

Title

TROY J. DUGAN V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

On June 30, 2014, defendants filed an ex parte application to stay execution of the
judgment. Dkt. #280. Plaintiff filed an opposition on July 2, 2014. Dkt. #284. After
considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

The Supersedeas Bond

Los Angeles County has presented a supersedeas bond to the Court in the amount
of $2,076,861.59, on behalf of defendants. Dkt. #282 (“Day Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-3. The bond is
intended to cover the award of compensatory damages in this case, but not the $150,000
punitive damages award. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. Plaintiff raises the following objection to the
adequacy of the bond:
It appears from the materials submitted to the Court that the proposed surety is
Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. . . . Despite this, the bond says that
Fidelity “does hereby . . . undertake that if the said judgment so appealed from,
or any part thereof, be affirmed, the said County of Los Angeles, will, on behalf
of Defendants . . . pay the amount directed to be paid by said judgment . . . .”
. . . Thus, the bond says that the County of Los Angeles will pay the judgment,
rather than the named surety for whom a power of attorney has been filed with
the Clerk.
Dkt. #284 at 14. This objection is overruled because the language used in the
supersedeas bond appears to be appropriate.1 Accordingly, the Court will approve the
bond by signing the proposed order submitted by defendants.

1

Plaintiff also argues that the bond is deficient because the accompanying attorney
certification does not comply with the Local Rules. Dkt. #214 at 14. The Court finds
that the attorney certification is adequate because attorney Douglas Day attests that the
bond “has been examined pursuant to Local Rule 65-3 and is recommended for
approval.” See L.R. 65-5.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-08145-CAS-SHx

Title

TROY J. DUGAN V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
B.

Date

‘O’

July 2, 2014

The Punitive Damages Portion of the Judgment

Defendants also contend that this Court should stay execution of the judgment as to
the punitive damages portion of the award, without requiring that defendants post a
supersedeas bond. Defendants argue that a stay is appropriate because they intend to
argue on appeal that the punitive damages award is excessive. Defendants further argue
that, if plaintiff is able to execute the judgment now, defendants may have to “undertake a
course of conduct which would render their subsequent appellate challenges moot based
on their inability to collateralize the bond at this time.” The Court finds this argument
unpersuasive because defendants do not explain what that “course of conduct” might be.
Nor do they explain how their appeal could be rendered moot if plaintiff is able to
execute the judgment as to the punitive damages award. Accordingly, the Court finds
that defendants have not set forth an adequate basis for staying execution of the punitive
damages portion of the judgment without the posting of a bond.
C.

Sanctions

Plaintiff requests that defendants be ordered to show cause why they should not be
sanctioned for their conduct associated with plaintiff’s efforts to execute the judgment,
including abuse of the ex parte process. The Court finds that sanctions are not warranted
at this time. However, the parties are reminded that ex parte applications are disfavored.
Accordingly, all subsequent filings in this action should proceed by noticed motion.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, defendants’ ex parte application is DENIED.
However, this denial is without prejudice to the application being renewed in conjunction
with: (1) a showing that execution of the punitive damages portion of the judgment would
result in defendants suffering irreparable harm; and (2) appropriate assurances from
defendant that they will not dissipate their assets during the pendency of the appeal. See,
e.g., Miami Int’l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 874 (10th Cir. 1986); Fed.
Prescription Serv. v. Am. Pharmaceutical Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3