Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member, Ltd. v. Matrix Group Limited, Inc. et al

Filing 429

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings to Enforce the Money Judgment Pending Disposition of Post-Judgment Motions 423 is GRANTED. The Judgment against Plaintiff 421 is stayed pending further order. Plaintiff is required to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $2,834,711.74, within fifteen days of the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 2/1/2012. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
HISCOX DEDICATED CORPORATE
MEMBER, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:09-cv-2465-T-33AEP

MATRIX GROUP LIMITED, INC. and
LOUIS ORLOFF,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings to Enforce the Money
Judgment Pending Disposition of Post-Judgment Motions (Doc. #
423), filed on January 25, 2012.

Defendants filed a Response

in Opposition to the Motion on January 27, 2012 (Doc. # 428).
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the Motion.
Analysis
On October 13, 2011, following an eleven-day trial, the
jury reached a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Court
entered its Judgment in favor of Defendants in the total
amount of $2,267,769.49.
1

(Doc. # 421).1

Defendants filed a Motion to Amend the Judgment (Doc.
# 425) and a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. # 426). These
(continued...)

Plaintiff seeks an order staying the Judgment pending the
disposition of Rule 50(b) and 59 post-trial motions pursuant
to Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2
Although Rule 62(b) calls for “appropriate terms of the
opposing party’s security,” Plaintiff submits that it should
not be required to post a bond.
Defendants do not oppose the stay of the Judgment;
however,

Defendants

argue

Plaintiff to post a bond.

that

this

Court

must

require

Specifically, Defendants note that

they “oppose the motion to the extent that the plaintiff
requests a stay without posting full security.” (Doc. # 428 at
1).

The issue that this Court must decide is the appropriate

amount of the security.
Defendants suggest that the

appropriate amount of the

bond should be $8,651,324.00, which represents the Judgment

1

(...continued)
Motions are not yet ripe for the Court’s review and will be
addressed via separate Order.
2

Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
states: “On appropriate terms for the opposing party’s
security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment--or
any proceedings to enforce it--pending disposition of any of
the following motions: under Rule 50, for judgment as a matter
of law . . . under Rule 59, for a new trial or to alter or
amend a judgment.”
-2-

amount,

pre-judgment

interest,

post-judgment

interest,

requested attorneys’ fees, and requested costs.

As noted,

Plaintiff suggests that no bond is needed “because there is no
question Hiscox will remain capable of paying any resulting
judgment.” (Doc. # 423 at 3).
The Court determines that it is appropriate to grant
Plaintiff’s motion to stay the Judgment; however, the Court
agrees with Defendants that “further delay without some form
of security prejudices the defendants and their right to
protection as the prevailing party in this action.” (Doc. #
428).

Had Plaintiff filed some document providing net worth

information, this Court might have been comfortable entering
a

stay

without

bond.

In

the

absence

of

any

objective

information regarding Plaintiff’s actual ability to pay the
Judgment, the Court considers Plaintiff’s representation that
“there is no concern about Hiscox’s financial position” to be
a mere platitude. (Doc. # 423 at 2).
In the alternative to its argument that no bond is
needed, Plaintiff indicates that it should be required to
provide “security equal to the net amount of judgment plus
some amount of post-judgment interest.” (Doc. # 423 at 6).
Plaintiff also points to Warfield v. Hall, No. 2:07-cv-332-3-

FtM-33SPC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50302, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr.
23, 2010).

In that case, this Court required posting of

security in the amount of the principal (which included the
judgment amount and attorneys fees and costs that had already
been awarded) plus 20 percent.
The Court requires Plaintiff to post a supersedeas bond
in the amount of $2,834,711.74 within 15 days of the date of
this Order.

This amount represents the Judgment amount plus

25 percent.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Stay of Proceedings to
Enforce the Money Judgment Pending Disposition of PostJudgment Motions (Doc. # 423) is GRANTED.

(2)

The Judgment against Plaintiff (Doc. # 421) is stayed
pending further order.

(3)

Plaintiff is required to post a supersedeas bond in the
amount of $2,834,711.74, within fifteen days of the date
of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 1st

day of February, 2012.

-4-

Copies: All Counsel of Record

-5-