Boulton et al v. U.S. Tax Lien Assoc.
Filing
100
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/28/19 DENYING 91 Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KERRY BOULTON, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
16
v.
No. 2:15-cv-2384-MCE-AC
ORDER
U.S. TAX LIEN ASSOCIATION, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
17
18
Through this action, individual foreign investors (“Plaintiffs”) sought to recover
19
from Defendant US Tax Lien Association and its principal, Saen Higgins (collectively
20
“USTLA”) and others for alleged misrepresentation and unfair business practices relating
21
to the Plaintiffs’ investment in tax lien certificates. Due to a series of misconduct by
22
Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations
23
(“F&Rs”) which, in part, recommended terminating sanctions against Plaintiffs. ECF No.
24
74. On January 22, 2019, this Court adopted the F&Rs in full and dismissed this case
25
with prejudice. ECF No. 78. Judgment was entered on the same day. ECF No. 79. On
26
March 21, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. ECF No. 88. Presently before the
27
Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal (ECF No. 91),
28
which asks, in part, that this Court waive bond as a condition of granting the motion to
1
1
stay. Id. at 1. USTLA opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion. ECF No. 93. For the reasons stated
2
below, Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED.1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) provides: “At any time after judgment is
3
4
entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. The stay takes
5
effect when the court approves the bond or other security and remains in effect for the
6
time specified in the bond or other security.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). FRCP 62(b)’s bond
7
requirement “speaks only to stays granted as a matter of right, it does not speak to stays
8
granted by the court in accordance with its discretion.” Fed. Prescription Serv. v. Am.
9
Pharm. Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “District courts have inherent
10
discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds,” Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc.,
11
831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987), and “the court has discretion to allow other
12
forms of judgment guarantee,” Int’l Telemeter Corp. v. Hamlin Int’l Corp., 754 F.2d 1492,
13
1495 (9th Cir. 1985), or even, under “unusual circumstances,” to order “unsecured stays
14
if they do not unduly endanger the judgment creditor's interest in ultimate recovery,” Am.
15
Pharm. Ass’n, 636 F.2d at 760-61. “A party seeking a departure from the normal
16
requirement of a full security supersedeas bond bears the burden of showing reasons for
17
such a departure.” Lewis v. Cty. of San Diego, No. 13-cv-02818-H-JMA, 2018 WL
18
1071704, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2018) (citations omitted); see also Hardesty v.
19
Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN, 2019 WL
20
2715616, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2019).
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
1
28
Having determined that oral argument would not be of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs in accordance with E.D. Local Rule 230(g).
2
1
Here, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in showing that a waiver of the
2
Rule 62(b) bond requirement is warranted. Plaintiffs’ assertion that the F&Rs contained
3
factual errors and contradictory findings is insufficient to grant such a waiver. See ECF
4
No. 91-1, at 3. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have failed to provide an adequate reason for why
5
they are unable to post a bond. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Execution of
6
Judgment Pending Appeal, ECF No. 91, is DENIED.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 28, 2019
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?