The Sherwin-Williams Company v. JB Collision Services, Inc. et al

Filing 343

ORDER Re: Costs and Supersedeas Bond. The Court orders that each party will bear its' own costs. The supersedeas bond is set at $325,000.The Court orders a temporary stay of enforcement until the bond is filed in compliance with Local Rule 65.1.2 and approved by this Court. Once the Court approves the bond, an automatic stay will enter under Rule 62(d). Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/17/16. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY,

CASE NO. 13cv1946-LAB (WVG)

12

ORDER RE: COSTS AND
SUPERSEDEAS BOND

Plaintiff,
13
14

vs.
JB COLLISION SERVICES, INC. et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Last November, a jury returned a verdict of about $375,000 for Sherwin-Williams and

17

$3.25 million for JB Collision on various claims resulting from supply-and-buy contracts for

18

auto paint. After trial, the Court granted, in part, Sherwin-Williams' motion to reduce JB

19

Collision’s damages to about $260,000 net. (Dkt. 311.) The Clerk calculated

20

Sherwin-Williams' costs at $36,000 and put JB Collision's costs at $41,000. (Dkt. 326, 327.)

21

JB Collision agreed with the Clerk's $41,000 figure, but argues that Sherwin-Williams isn't

22

entitled to any costs because JB Collision is the prevailing party. (Dkt. 328.)

23

A.

Each party will bear its’ own costs.

24

Typically, costs “should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54. “If each

25

side recovers in part, ordinarily the party recovering the larger sum will be considered the

26

prevailing party.” Civ. Local R. 54.1. Here, Sherwin-Williams has to pay JB Collision about

27

$260,000. Under the plain language of the rule, JB Collision is the prevailing party and

28

should be allowed costs.

-1-

13cv1946

1

But the Local Rule contemplates what’s ordinarily, but not always, the case. And Rule

2

54 provides an exception to the presumption where “a court order provides otherwise.”

3

“Notwithstanding this presumption, the word ‘should’ makes clear that the decision whether

4

to award costs ultimately lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Marx v. Gen.

5

Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166, 1172 (2013). When exercising this discretion, the Court

6

must “specify reasons for its refusal” to follow the normal presumption. Ass'n of Mexican-Am.

7

Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572, 591 (9th Cir. 2000). There’s no “exhaustive

8

list of ‘good reasons’ for declining to award costs”; rather, the Court needs to provide a

9

sound justification for departing from the ordinary case. Id. at 593. Here, the Court specifies

10

two good reasons the parties should cover their own costs.

11

First, although JB Collision secured a net monetary win, that doesn’t makes them the

12

prevailing party in this case. That’s because Sherwin-Williams brought claims for breach of

13

contract and won all of those claims for $375,000. In mixed judgment cases like this, “it is

14

within the discretion of a district court to require each party to bear its own costs.” Amarel v.

15

Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523 (9th Cir. 1996), as amended (Jan. 15, 1997); see Cornwell

16

Quality Tools Co. v. C. T. S. Co., 446 F.2d 825, 833 (9th Cir. 1971).

17

Second, many courts have recognized that where a party recovers “substantially less

18

in damages that it had sought,” that’s a sufficient reason for a court to “support a

19

discretionary decision to deny costs.” Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342

20

F.3d 1016, 1023 (9th Cir. 2003).1 JB Collision asked for $32 million and ultimately received

21

only $635,000—2% of the damages sought.

22

In close cases like this one, it’s helpful to look to the logic underlying the rule. Rule

23

54(d) deters plaintiff’s from filing frivolous suits and recognizes that winning litigant’s should

24

be made whole. Where a party wins the suit they filed, but the defendant scores a higher

25

sum on a counter claim (and for substantially less than they sought), awarding costs to one

26
27
28

1

Champion limited its’ holding to contract actions, but JB Collision won damages for
fraud and misrepresentation. The Court, however, finds the Champion logic applies, not only
because the heart of this action is a contract dispute, but because the damages are “readily
calculable” as in Champion.
-2-

13cv1946

1

party wouldn’t further the purpose of the rule. And since the rule contemplates a single

2

prevailing party, the Court finds that neither Sherwin-Williams or JB Collision prevailed, and

3

orders that each bear its’ own costs. Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir.

4

2010).

5

B.

The supersedeas bond is set at $325,000.

6

Both parties have appealed. (Dkt. 331, 335.) Sherwin-Williams moved under Rule 62

7

for a supersedeas bond to stay the judgment during appeal. “The purpose of a supersedeas

8

bond is to secure the appellees from a loss resulting from the stay of execution,” and the

9

determination of the bond rests in the courts’ “inherent discretionary authority.” Rachel v.

10

Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987). The Ninth Circuit has

11

approved bond amounts that cover the judgment and the costs of appeal. See Am. Ass'n of

12

Naturopathic Physicians v. Hayhurst, 227 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2000).

13

Sherwin-Williams’ suggested a reasonable bond of $325,000 that covers the

14

$260,000 judgment with plenty of room for interest and other costs.2 The Court agrees with

15

Sherwin-Williams that the supersedeas bond is based on the $260,000 net judgment—not

16

the previous jury award of $3.25 million. See Exxon Valdez v. Exxon Mobil, 568 F.3d 1077,

17

1085 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that the “supersedeas bond was amended each time the amount

18

of the judgment changed”).

19

The Court orders a temporary stay of enforcement until the bond is filed in compliance

20

with Local Rule 65.1.2 and approved by this Court. Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 463

21

U.S. 1323, 1324, 104 S.Ct. 7, 77 L.Ed.2d 1426 (1983) (explaining, it’s “well-settled that a

22

court retains the power to grant injunctive relief to a party to preserve the status quo during

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27
2

28

The Southern District does not require a certain amount for a bond. Other districts
require that the bond be 125 percent of the judgment—borrowing that rule here, the amount
would be exactly $325,000. Eastern District Local Rule 151(d).
-3-

13cv1946

1

the pendency of an appeal”). Once the Court approves the bond, an automatic stay will

2

enter under Rule 62(d).

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 17, 2016

6
7

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

13cv1946