Becker et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Inc. et al
Filing
244
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/8/2015 ORDERING that the hearing on plaintiff's motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond currently scheduled for 4/9/2015, at 10:00 A.M., is VACATED. Plaintiff's 231 motion for an order denying defendant's request for issuance of an abstract of judgment is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall forthwith send defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. an abstract of judgment. Plaintiff's 237 motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond is DENIED without prejudice. Within 10 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended proposed cash bond instrument that includes the clarifications detailed above. Once filed, the court will review the amended i nstrument. If approved, the court will issue an order directing plaintiff to deposit with the Clerk of Court a cash bond in the amount of $188,706.43 accompanied by the approved instrument. Once deposited, execution of the judgment awarding defendant attorneys' fees and costs shall be stayed pending plaintiff's appeal of that judgment before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DENNLY BECKER, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
No. 2:10-cv-2799-TLN-KJN PS
ORDER
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Currently before the court are two motions filed by plaintiff. Through one of the motions,
17
18
plaintiff requests that the court issue an order denying defendant’s request for issuance of an
19
abstract of judgment with respect to the judgment issued on defendant’s attorneys’ fees motion.
20
(ECF No. 231.) Through the other motion, plaintiff requests the court to approve plaintiff’s
21
proposal to post a supersedeas bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) with
22
regard to the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’ fees and costs in order to obtain an
23
automatic stay of this judgment pending plaintiff’s appeal. (ECF No. 237.)1 Defendant filed an
24
opposition and plaintiff filed a reply with respect to each motion. (ECF Nos. 234, 238, 241, 242.)
25
////
26
1
27
28
Plaintiff proceeds on an amended motion. On March 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a document styled
as a withdrawal of his original motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond that he had filed on
February 20, 2015. (ECF No. 237.) The court subsequently construed this motion as an amended
motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond. (ECF No. 240.)
1
1
Plaintiff’s motion to deny the issuance of an abstract of judgment was submitted on the
2
papers without oral argument. (ECF No. 239.) Plaintiff’s other motion is currently scheduled for
3
a hearing before the undersigned on April 9, 2015. (ECF 240.) However, upon reviewing the
4
parties’ briefing with respect to this motion, the court concludes that oral argument would not be
5
of material assistance in resolving this motion. Accordingly, this motion is submitted on the
6
record and briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and the April 9, 2015 hearing is vacated. After
7
considering the parties’ filings and supporting documentation, the court rules on plaintiff’s
8
motions as follows.
9
I.
10
11
Motion for Order Denying Defendant’s Request for Issuance of an Abstract of
Judgment
First, the court addresses plaintiff’s motion to deny defendant’s request for the Clerk of
12
Court to issue an abstract of judgment. Through this motion, plaintiff argues that issuance of an
13
abstract of judgment would prejudice him because he did not receive notice of defendant’s
14
request until the day the 14-day automatic stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a)
15
expired. (ECF No. 231 at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that defendant misrepresented in the certificate of
16
service for its request that the filing was served to plaintiff via overnight mail, when it had in fact
17
been sent by first class mail. Plaintiff argues that this misrepresentation prejudiced him because it
18
misrepresented to the court that plaintiff had received notice of defendant’s request several days
19
prior to the date that he actually did receive it, and that plaintiff received the notice several days
20
prior to the end of the initial 14-day stay, which he did not. Plaintiff appears to argue that
21
defendant’s request violated the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) that “no
22
execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days
23
have passed after its entry.” Plaintiff also appears to claim that the timing of defendant’s notice
24
of its request prejudiced him because he was unable to file an opposition to this request or a
25
motion to stay this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) prior to the end of the
26
14-day stay.
27
28
Plaintiff fails to show how defendant’s request was in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62(a) or in any way prejudicial. As an initial matter, it appears that plaintiff confuses
2
1
defendant’s request for issuance of an abstract of judgment as a request for execution of the
2
judgment. Issuance of an abstract of judgment, and even recordation of an abstract of judgment,
3
“is not a step in the process of execution upon the judgment.” Indus. Indem. Co. v. Levine, 49
4
Cal. App. 3d 698, 699 (Ct. App. 1975).2 Rather, an abstract of judgment is a written summary of
5
the judgment that has been entered and merely reflects the amount that is owed to the prevailing
6
party and any other terms of the judgment. Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff argues that he
7
was prejudiced because defendant’s request was an attempt at executing on the judgment
8
awarding attorneys’ fees and costs prior to the end of the initial 14-day stay pursuant to Federal
9
Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), the argument is without merit.
10
Furthermore, to date, no abstract of judgment has been issued regarding the judgment
11
awarding defendant attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff fails to show how defendant’s request
12
somehow prevented or hindered him in filing a motion seeking a stay pursuant to Federal Rule of
13
Civil Procedure 62(d) or prematurely sought execution on the judgment. Therefore, plaintiff’s
14
assertion that defendant’s request was prejudicial is not well taken.
15
Nothing prevents defendant from being issued the requested abstract of judgment. The
16
automatic 14-day stay pursuant to Rule 62(d) did not prevent defendant from obtaining, or even
17
recording, an abstract during that time period. See Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 784, 785, n.1 (9th
18
Cir. 1989) (“The court’s refusal to stay execution of the judgment, or to expunge the abstract of
19
judgment from the county records, was not an abuse of discretion. Recording a judgment is
20
generally not held to be prohibited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a).”). Similarly, plaintiff’s pending
21
motion for a stay pursuant to Rule 62(d) does not prevent the abstract from being issued to
22
defendant. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s motion and directs the Clerk of Court to issue
23
an abstract of judgment to defendant.
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
28
2
Pursuant to 28 USC § 1962, enforcement of federal judgments and the establishment of liens
pursuant to such judgments are based on the law of the state under which the judgment is entered.
3
1
II.
2
With regard to the motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond, plaintiff requests that
Motion for Approval to Post a Supersedeas Bond
3
the court approve his proposed bond instrument, which proposes a cash bond in lieu of a surety
4
bond, and issue a stay on the execution of judgment with regard to the attorneys’ fees and costs
5
awarded to defendant.
6
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), a party may obtain a stay of execution
7
of a judgment as a matter of right upon the court’s approval of a supersedeas bond. Even though
8
Rule 62(d) provides only that a party may post a supersedeas bond in order to obtain such a stay,
9
district courts have discretion to “allow other forms of judgment guarantee” in lieu of a bond.
10
International Telemeter, Corp. v. Hamlin International Corp., 754 F.2d 1492, 1495 (9th Cir.
11
1985).
12
In this District, Local Rule 151(e) generally requires that proposed bonds take the form of
13
a surety bond that is acknowledged by both the party offering it and that party’s surety. However,
14
Local Rule 151(d), which specifically concerns supersedeas bonds, grants the court wide
15
equitable discretion to depart from the normal bond requirement.3 Furthermore, Local Rule
16
151(h) gives the court discretion to permit a party to post cash in lieu of a surety bond in order to
17
satisfy the supersedeas bond requirement in Rule 62(d). Such a deposit must be “accompanied by
18
a written instrument, to be approved by the Court, executed and acknowledged by the party,
19
setting forth the conditions upon which the deposit is made, and the fact that the Clerk may
20
collect or sell the obligations and apply the proceeds, or the cash deposited, in the case of default
21
as provided in the bond.” Local Rule 151(h).
22
Here, plaintiff attached a proposed cash bond instrument to his declaration filed in support
23
of his motion. (ECF No. 237-2 at 9.) Plaintiff proposes to post a bond of $188,706.43 in cash
24
with the Clerk of Court, which amounts to 125 percent of the judgment amount entered against
25
him with respect to defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs award and satisfies this District’s
26
amount requirement pursuant to Local Rule 151(d). However, as defendant notes in its
27
28
3
Local Rule 151(d) provides: “When required, a supersedeas bond shall be 125 percent of the
amount of the judgment unless the Court otherwise orders.” (emphasis added.)
4
1
opposition, plaintiff’s proposed instrument does not satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 151(h)
2
because it does not adequately set forth the conditions upon which the deposit will be made or
3
specify the terms of default. With respect to the conditions upon which the deposit is made, the
4
instrument should state that the deposit is made upon condition of the court’s order granting the
5
proposed instrument and is to be held by the Clerk of Court during the pendency of the appeal of
6
the court’s award of attorney’s fees. Regarding the terms of default, the instrument should
7
provide language that the deposited funds shall be released to defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
8
in the event that plaintiff’s appeal with respect to the award of attorneys’ fees and costs is
9
dismissed or the court’s order is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
10
Because the proposed instrument does not comply with Local Rule 151(h), the court
11
denies plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Nevertheless, defendant notes that if plaintiff’s
12
proposed bond instrument were amended to include the clarifications described above, then
13
defendant would have no objections to the court granting plaintiff’s request to post the proposed
14
cash bond. Plaintiff indicates in his reply brief that he is willing to amend his proposed bond
15
instrument to provide such clarifications. Accordingly, the court directs plaintiff to file an
16
amended proposed bond instrument that provides the clarifications detailed above within 10 days
17
of this order. Upon filing, the court will review plaintiff’s proposed amended instrument to
18
determine whether it complies with the requirements of Local Rule 151(h). If the amended
19
instrument is approved by the court, plaintiff shall deposit with the Clerk of Court a money bond
20
in the amount of $188,706.43 accompanied by the approved instrument. Once plaintiff deposits
21
this bond, execution of the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’ fees and costs shall be stayed
22
pending plaintiff’s appeal of that judgment before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
23
III.
24
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1.
26
27
28
Conclusion
The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond currently
scheduled for April 9, 2015, at 10:00 A.M., is VACATED.
2.
Plaintiff’s motion for an order denying defendant’s request for issuance of an
abstract of judgment (ECF No. 231) is DENIED.
5
1
2
3
4
5
3.
The Clerk of Court shall forthwith send defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. an
abstract of judgment.
4.
Plaintiff’s motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond (ECF No. 237) is
DENIED without prejudice.
5.
Within 10 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended proposed
6
cash bond instrument that includes the clarifications detailed above. Once filed, the court will
7
review the amended instrument. If approved, the court will issue an order directing plaintiff to
8
deposit with the Clerk of Court a cash bond in the amount of $188,706.43 accompanied by the
9
approved instrument. Once deposited, execution of the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’
10
fees and costs shall be stayed pending plaintiff’s appeal of that judgment before the Ninth Circuit
11
Court of Appeals.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 8, 2015
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?