Miller v. Schmitz et al

Filing 148

ORDER re: Defendants' Motion to Appove Security and to Stay Execution of Judgment, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/10/14. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ISAAC MILLER,

9

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
APPROVE SECURITY AND TO STAY
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

v.

10
11

Case No. 1:12-cv-0137 LJO SAB

HANFORD POLICE OFFICER STEVE
SCMITZ, et al.,

(Doc. 145)

Defendants.

13

/

14

15

On January 9, 2014, Defendants Officer Steve Schmitz and the City of Hanford (collectively

16

“Defendants”) moved to stay execution of the Court’s December 2, 2013 judgment and deposited a

17

check in the amount of $581,250 as security. Plaintiff Isaac Miller (“Plaintiff”) objects, arguing that

18

the security is insufficient. Plaintiff asserts that while $581,250 covers the net damages award in this

19

case ($465,000), it is insufficient to cover all the anticipated additional costs associated with Plaintiff’s

20

motion for attorney’s fees and Bill of Costs.

21

The Court construes Defendants’ motion as applying only to the damages that were awarded in

22

the December 2, 2013 judgment (i.e., $465,000). As such, the amount of the security is sufficient, as it

23

amounts to 125% of the award. See Local Rule 151(d). If, in the future, Defendants also wish to stay

24

execution of any other cost in this case (e.g., prejudgment interest,1 attorney’s fees, and/or the Bill of

25

Costs), Defendants will be required to post additional security in accordance with Local Rule 151 and

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d).

27
28

1

If the Court denies Defendants’ motion for a new trial (a matter that is currently being briefed by the
parties), the Court will issue an amended judgment reflecting the award of prejudgment interest.
1

1

The Court does, however, have other concerns with Defendants’ security. It does not appear to

2

be in compliance with Local Rule 151(e) since it does not contain a provision expressly subjecting it

3

to all applicable federal law. Nor does it appear to be in compliance with Local Rule 151(j) since the

4

security is not accompanied by an affidavit stating that the property is unencumbered. Therefore, by

5

no later than January 17, 2014, Defendants may (1) correct these omissions by filing an “Amended

6

Agreement for Distribution of Security/Funds in Lieu of Bond”; or (2) explain why Local Rule 151(e)

7

or (j) do not apply.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2014

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2