Sorrels et al v. NCL

Filing 118

ORDER denying 112 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 10/22/2014. (sry)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-21413-CIV-COHN/SELTZER

TERESITA SORRELS and
JOSEPH SORRELS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., d/b/a
NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE,
Defendant.
___________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND MOTION TO APPROVE SUPERSEDEAS BOND
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing,
Reconsideration, Alteration or Amendment of Judgment and/or Relief from Court’s
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Cost Award and Final Judgment Entered
Thereon and/or Alternative Motion to Stay Enforcement of Cost Judgment and Leave to
File Supersedeas Bond [DE 112] (“Motion”). The Court has carefully reviewed the
Motion and Defendant’s Response [DE 114] and is otherwise advised in the premises.
On September 3, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Defer Ruling on the
Defendant’s Motion to Tax Costs and/or Alternative Motion to Stay Execution as to Any
Costs Judgment Rendered [DE 100]. See DE 110 at 9. Applying the four factors
relevant to a stay pending appeal, the Court declined to stay its costs ruling or judgment
until the Eleventh Circuit decides Plaintiffs’ appeal of this Court’s final judgment.
Among other points, the Court determined that Plaintiffs had not made the required
strong showing that they were likely to prevail on appeal. See id. at 3. The Court then

proceeded to grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Costs [DE 96],
awarding Defendant $11,141.90 in taxable costs. See DE 110 at 9; DE 111 at 1 (Final
J. Taxing Costs).
In their current Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider its denial of a stay
pending appeal. They argue that “the Court misconstrued” Plaintiffs’ arguments that
they are likely to succeed on appeal, because the Court did “not consider[]” that the
Eleventh Circuit has set Plaintiffs’ appeal for oral argument. DE 112 at 2-3. But though
not expressly stated, the Court was aware of this fact, consistent with the reasoning in
its Order. See DE 110 at 3 (“The issues presented on appeal, like those decided by
this Court, are substantial.”). And the Eleventh Circuit’s grant of oral argument does not
change that Plaintiffs have failed to show a strong likelihood of prevailing on appeal.
See Reyher v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y, 900 F. Supp. 428, 430 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
(explaining that a court may not grant reconsideration if “the motion does not raise new
issues but only relitigates what has already been found lacking”).1
Alternatively, Plaintiffs move for “an automatic stay of the costs judgment
pursuant to the provisions of Local Rule 62.1 for the purposes of obtaining a
supersedeas bond.” DE 112 at 7; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 (d); S.D. Fla. L.R. 62.1. In this
respect, Plaintiffs have filed a supersedeas bond in the amount of $11,142.00—virtually
the same as the $11,141.90 costs award. See DE 116 at 3. Under this Court’s Local
Rules, however, “[a] supersedeas bond staying execution of a money judgment shall be
in the amount of 110% of the judgment, to provide security for interest, costs, and any
award of damages for delay.” S.D. Fla. L.R. 62.1(a) (emphasis added). Because
1

The Court has considered Plaintiffs’ other arguments for reconsideration but
finds that they lack merit and do not warrant separate discussion.
2

Plaintiffs’ bond is insufficient, the Court will not approve it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)
(“The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.”).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rehearing,
Reconsideration, Alteration or Amendment of Judgment and/or Relief from Court’s
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Cost Award and Final Judgment Entered
Thereon and/or Alternative Motion to Stay Enforcement of Cost Judgment and Leave to
File Supersedeas Bond [DE 112] is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 22nd day of October, 2014.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF

3