Zurich American Insurance Company v. Staffing Concepts National, Inc. et al

Filing 258

ORDER denying 251 motion to stay; granting 254 motion for reconsideration re 250 Order on Motion for Writ of Garnishment. See order for further details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 1/23/2018. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:14-cv-775-T-23AAS

STAFFING CONCEPTS NATIONAL, INC.,
et al,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER
Leasing Resources of America 2, Inc., Leasing Resources of America 3, Inc., Leasing
Resources of America 4, Inc., LSA Global HR, Inc., and LRA HR Outsourcing, Inc. (“LRA”)
request a stay of the garnishment proceedings pending resolution of its appeal of Zurich’s over
$4.5 million judgment against LRA. (Doc. 251). In addition, Zurich American Insurance
Company (“Zurich”) requests that the court reconsider its order denying without prejudice
Zurich’s Fourth Motion for Writ of Garnishment after Judgment (Doc. 221). (Doc. 254). The
defendants did not respond to this motion.
A. LRA’s Motion to Stay Garnishment Proceedings (Doc. 251)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides that an appellant may obtain a stay of
garnishment proceedings pending appeal by posting a supersedeas bond. The purpose of the
supersedeas bond is to secure the prevailing party against the risk that the judgment debtor will be
unable to meet its obligations if its appeal does not succeed. “If no bond is posted, the judgment
creditor may execute on the judgment during the appeal.” Chalfonte Condo. Apartment Ass’n, Inc.
v. QBE Ins. Corp., 695 F.3d 1215, 1232 (11th Cir. 2012). “If the judgment is reversed, then the
appellant is entitled to have its property restored by the appellee.” Id. Thus, unless the judgment

debtor posts a supersedeas bond, the judgment creditor’s execution of the judgment should go
forward.
Here, LRA has not posted a supersedeas bond. Therefore, LRA’s requested stay is not
warranted and the motion is denied.
B. Zurich’s Motion to Reconsider December 20, 2017 Order (Doc. 254)
Similarly, LRA’s co-defendant G&S Leasing Group VI, Inc. (“G&S”) has not posted a
supersedeas bond. Thus, the court erred in its prior order denying without prejudice Zurich’s
Fourth Motion for Writ of Garnishment after Judgment (Doc. 221). (Doc. 250). Because G&S
has not posted a supersedeas bond, the garnishment proceedings that are the subject of Zurich’s
Fourth Motion for Writ of Garnishment after Judgment (Doc. 221) should proceed.
Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a money judgment is enforced
by a writ of garnishment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(1). “The procedure on execution . . . must accord
with the procedure of the state where the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent
it applies.” Id. Florida law provides a right to a writ of garnishment to judgment creditors to help
satisfy a money judgment. Fla. Stat. § 77.01. To obtain a writ of garnishment, the judgment
creditor must file a motion stating the amount of the judgment. Fla. Stat. § 77.03. The writ must
direct the garnishee to answer the writ within twenty (20) days and state the amount named in the
judgment creditor’s motion. Fla. Stat. § 77.04.
On July 21, 2017, Zurich obtained judgments against the defendants, including a judgment
against G&S in the amount of $1,271,513.23. (Doc. 178). Zurich’s judgment against G&S
remains due and owing. Based on the information provided by Zurich to the court, G&S maintains
a bank account with Bank of America, and Bank of America may therefore be in the possession of
funds belonging to G&S. (Doc. 221). Attaching a proposed writ that directs Bank of America to
2

respond within twenty (20) days and that states the amount named in the judgment creditor’s
motion as required by statute, Zurich had moved for a writ of garnishment against Bank of
America. (Id.). Although the court previously denied that request without prejudice due to the
pending appeal, the court now reconsiders that decision and concludes that it erred.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

LRA Defendants’ Motion to Stay Garnishment Proceedings (Doc. 251) is
DENIED.

(2)

Zurich’s Motion to Reconsider December 20, 2017 Order (Doc. 254) is
GRANTED.

(3)

The Clerk of Court shall issue a writ of garnishment to Bank of America using the
form attached to Zurich’s original motion and the address for Bank of America
contained in the form (Doc. 221, Ex. A). The writ shall include copies of the
following:
a. Zurich’s Fourth Motion for Writ of Garnishment After Judgment (Doc. 221),
b. this order, and
c. the judgment (Doc. 178).

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on this 23rd day of January, 2018.

3