Watson et al v. Dillon Companies, Inc. et al

Filing 920

ORDER granting 918 Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal and for Approval of Supersedeas Bond. ORDERED that this Court APPROVES the supersedeas bond 919 filed January 6, 2014. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, the Defendants shall delive r the original bond to the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado for the Court's safekeeping and file an appropriate document with the Court confirming such delivery by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 01/09/14.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00091-WYD-CBS
WAYNE WATSON and
MARY WATSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DILLON COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a/ KING SOOPERS, also d/b/a INTER-AMERICAN
PRODUCTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Dillon Companies’ Unopposed
Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal and for Approval of Supersedeas Bond (ECF
No. 918). In the motion, Defendants indicate that they intend to appeal the Court’s Third
Amended Final Judgment in addition to various Court orders denying post-trial motions.
Accordingly, Defendants request that I suspend execution of the judgment during the
pendency of these appeals.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d), I may extend the stay of execution of the judgment
through the duration of the appeal upon the posting of a supersedeas bond by
Defendants. An appealing judgment debtor is entitled to a stay of execution of judgment
upon the posting of adequate security. Wilmer v. Board of County Commissioners, 844
F. Supp. 1414, 1417 (D. Kan. 1993). The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure an
appellee from loss resulting from a stay of execution. U.S. ex. rel. Sun Const. Co., Inc.,
v. Torix General Contractors, LLC, 2011 WL 2182897, *1 (citing Miami Inter. Realty Co. v.

Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1986)) (citations omitted). District Courts have
inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds. Id. A court normally sets
the amount of a bond to cover the full judgment, including damages, costs, and interests
for the delay. Torix, 2011 WL 2182897, at *2.
Concurrent with the filing of this motion, Defendants have posted a supersedeas
bond in the amount of $7,225,734.91, which covers the face amount of damages
awarded, attorney fees, costs, prejudgment interest, and post-judgment interest, as well
as projected interest and appellate costs. Upon my approval, the original bond will be
delivered to the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado for the Court’s safekeeping.
Pursuant to Rule 62(d), I find that the unopposed motion should be granted.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Dillon Companies’ Unopposed Motion to Stay
Judgment Pending Appeal and for Approval of Supersedeas Bond (ECF No. 918) is
GRANTED. Upon the posting of the supersedeas bond, Plaintiffs are STAYED from
executing, or attempting to execute, upon the judgment in this case and from filing any
proceedings to enforce the judgment pending the appeal of this case. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this Court APPROVES the supersedeas bond (ECF
No. 919), filed January 6, 2014. Within 10 days of the date of this Order, the Defendants
shall deliver the original bond to the Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado for the Court’s safekeeping and file an appropriate document with
the Court confirming such delivery.

Dated: January 9, 2014
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE