Eastern Property Development LLC et al v. Gill

Filing 142

ORDER granting 140 Motion for Reconsideration re 139 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion to Stay. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 01/09/2013. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
EASTERN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,
LLC and SOUTH EAST ENTERPRISE
GROUP, LLC,

*
*

Plaintiffs,

*
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-62 (CDL)

vs.

*

LOREN GILL,

*

Defendant.

*
O R D E R

Defendant Loren Gill (“Gill”) seeks reconsideration of this
Court’s

decision

to

judgment obtained by

lift

the

stay

of

the

execution

of

the

Plaintiffs Eastern Property Development,

LLC and South East Enterprise Group, LLC (“Plaintiffs”).

Upon

reconsideration and for the reasons explained in this Order, the
Court grants Gill’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 140).
A brief review of the proceedings provides background and
context relevant to deciding the pending motion.
brought

claims

interference

against

with

Gill

contractual

for

trespass,

relations.

Plaintiffs

conversion,
Gill

asserted

and
a

counterclaim against Plaintiffs that was assigned to him by his
company, Elm Leasing, LLC.

In his counterclaim, Gill claimed

that Plaintiffs improperly retained the revenues of Elm Leasing,
LLC, which the Court previously concluded is owned by Gill.

Gill

asserted

this

counterclaim

as

an

affirmative

claim

for

damages but also in the nature of a defense for set-off should
Plaintiffs prevail on their claims against Gill.

Prior to the

jury trial, the Court decided that it would not permit Gill to
assert

the

counterclaim

during

trial.

Instead,

the

Court

concluded that the counterclaim should be resolved in a separate
action that is pending in this Court in which Plaintiffs, Gill,
and Elm Leasing are all parties.
above

captioned

action,

the

Therefore, at the trial of the

jury

only

considered

Plaintiffs’

claims against Gill, rendering a verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor
and awarding Plaintiffs $35,335.98 in compensatory damages and
$250,000.00

in

punitive

damages.

Because

the

Court

severed

Gill’s counterclaim, Gill was unable to set off any damages he
may have recovered under his counterclaim against the award of
damages in favor of Plaintiffs against him.
After the jury verdict, Gill filed a motion to reduce the
punitive

damages

award

and

also

requested

a

stay

of

the

execution of the judgment until Gill’s Elm Leasing claim against
Plaintiffs is decided in the related action.

The Court granted

a stay pending resolution of the motion to reduce the punitive
damages
motion.

award

and

then

lifted

the

stay

when

it

denied

that

Gill now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision

to lift the stay.

2

By

severing

prevented

Gill

counterclaim

Gill’s
from

against

Elm

Leasing

offsetting
the

verdict

counterclaim,

any

Plaintiffs

Court

under

recovery

the

that

obtained

against

him.

While Gill will certainly have the opportunity to pursue

that

claim

in

the

related

litigation,

he

has

lost

the

opportunity to offset any recovery against the judgment that has
now been entered against him.
squarely

fit

within

any

While these circumstances do not
of

the

specific

considerations

traditionally supporting a stay of the execution of a judgment,
the

Court

finds

that

the

balance

of

the

equities

interests of justice warrant the relief sought.

and

the

Accordingly,

the Court stays the execution of the judgment in this action
until

Gill’s

adjudicated.

Elm

Leasing

claim

against

Plaintiffs

can

be

To assure that the Plaintiffs’ ability to collect

their judgment is not compromised during the stay, the Court
permits Plaintiffs to file a motion for bond or security to
secure their judgment pending the outcome of Gill’s Elm Leasing
claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3