Moreno et al v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel, Co. et al

Filing 299

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/18/2017 ORDERING the court APPROVES defendants' request to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,768,750.00, and STAYS the execution of the judgment pending appeal. This order resolves ECF No. 288 . (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DEANNA MORENO et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:13-cv-00691-KJM-KJN

ORDER

ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL, CO.
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On July 21, 2016, defendants appealed this court’s order clarifying plaintiffs’

18
19

December 28, 2015 judgment award. Defendants move this court to approve a supersedeas bond

20

of $1,768,750.00 and stay enforcement of the judgment pending the outcome on appeal.

21

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The court submitted defendants’ motion without oral argument.

22

ECF No. 295. As discussed below, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion and approves the

23

supersedeas bond of $1,768,750.00 and stays execution of judgment pending appeal.

24

I.

25

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs Michael Moreno and his stepson Jared Mitchell were injured when

26

Michael Moreno drove his boat, in which he and his son Jared Mitchell were passengers, into

27

defendant Ross Island’s dredge pipeline. See Prior Order 2, ECF No. 275. As a result, Deanna

28

Moreno, Michael Moreno’s wife and Jared Mitchell’s mother, suffered emotional distress. Id.
1

1

All three plaintiffs proceeded to trial against Ross Island on a negligence claim. Id. On

2

November 3, 2015, the jury found Michael Moreno had sustained $400,000.00 in damages, Jared

3

Mitchell $1.5 million, and Deanna Moreno $25,000.00. Id. The same jury assigned ninety

4

percent of the fault for the accident to Michael Moreno and ten percent to Ross Island. ECF No.

5

238.

6

On December 28, 2015, this court entered judgment “in accordance with the jury

7

verdict.” ECF No. 250. On February 11, 2016, defendants moved to clarify the terms of the

8

December 28, 2015 judgment. ECF No. 259. On June 30, 2016, the court granted defendants’

9

request and explained defendants were entitled to contribution from Michael Moreno for his

10

ninety percent share of liability; Jared Mitchell and Deanna Moreno were entitled to the full

11

amount of damages from Ross Island. Prior Order at 6–9. Defendants appealed the clarification

12

order on July 21, 2016. ECF No. 276. On August 30, 2016, defendants filed notice of posting a

13

supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,768,750.00 to “stay the execution of judgment pending

14

appeal.” ECF No. 280.

15

On September 15, 2016, defendants moved this court to grant its supersedeas bond

16

and stay the execution of the December 28, 2015 judgment. Mot. 1–2, ECF No. 288. Plaintiffs

17

opposed this motion, Opp’n, ECF No. 289, and defendants replied, Reply, ECF No. 290.

18

II.

19

DISCUSSION
Defendants contend they are entitled to a stay as a matter of right because they

20

appealed this court’s order clarifying the December 28, 2015 judgment and posted a supersedeas

21

bond. Mot. at 5. While plaintiffs do not challenge the amount of the bond, they contend a stay is

22

not warranted because defendants’ appeal only challenges the order clarifying the court’s

23

judgment and not the judgment itself. Opp’n at 4–11. Plaintiffs also contend the bond is

24

inadequate because it does not name all plaintiffs. Id. at 10.

25

A party taking an appeal from the District Court is entitled to a stay of a money

26

judgment “as a matter of right” if he posts a bond in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). Bass

27

v. First Pac. Networks, Inc., 219 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins.

28

Co. v. Am. Broad.-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 (1966) (memorandum decision)).
2

1

Rule 62(d) provides, in relevant part,

2

If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas
bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of
appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay
takes effect when the court approves the bond.

3
4
5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). The rule is a purely procedural mechanism to preserve the status quo

6

during a stay pending appeal of a district court decision. Bass v. First Pac. Networks, Inc.,

7

219 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2000). District courts have inherent discretionary authority to set

8

the amount of and accept (or not) a supersedeas bonds. Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831

9

F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987); Wunschel & Small, Inc., v. United States, 554 F.Supp. 444–

10

45 (U.S.Cl.Ct. 1983) (Rule 62(d) does not preclude the court from issuing a stay without a bond

11

or upon the posting of a partial bond).

12

Here, defendants appealed the district court’s order clarifying the December 28,

13

2015 judgment. ECF No. 276. A month later, defendants filed notice indicating they had posted

14

a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal. ECF No. 280. Because

15

“an appeal” is taken, the court finds defendants are entitled to a stay. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.,

16

87 S. Ct. at 1.

17

Plaintiffs contend that because defendants do not directly appeal the December 28,

18

2015 judgment, but instead appeal the June 30, 2016 order clarifying the judgment, defendants’

19

appeal does not fall within the scope of Rule 62(d). Opp’n at 4–9. Plaintiffs cite no authority

20

limiting the rule to appeals directly challenging the judgment, and the rule’s plain text does not

21

require such a limited reading.

22

Plaintiffs further contend the supersedeas bond does not “adequately name each of

23

the judgment creditors intended to be benefitted by the bond.” Opp’n at 11. Again, plaintiffs cite

24

to no authority mandating that a bond name each judgment creditor, and the plain reading of Rule

25

62(d) does not require such detail. See In re Wymer, 5 B.R. 802, 805 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Cal. 1980)

26

(Rule 62(d) only requires bond to be in “sufficient amount to cover the unsatisfied judgment,

27

costs on appeal, interest and damages for delay.”).

28
3

1

Accordingly, the court approves defendants’ motion to post a supersedeas bond in

2

the amount of $1,768,750.00 and stays the case pending appeal.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the court APPROVES defendants’ request to post a

5

supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,768,750.00, and STAYS the execution of the judgment

6

pending appeal.

7

This order resolves ECF No. 288.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: May 18, 2017.

10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4