Eastern Property Development LLC et al v. Gill
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
EASTERN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,
LLC and SOUTH EAST ENTERPRISE
CASE NO. 4:11-CV-62 (CDL)
O R D E R
Defendant Loren Gill (“Gill”) seeks reconsideration of this
judgment obtained by
Plaintiffs Eastern Property Development,
LLC and South East Enterprise Group, LLC (“Plaintiffs”).
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.
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.
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
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.
Therefore, at the trial of the
claims against Gill, rendering a verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor
and awarding Plaintiffs $35,335.98 in compensatory damages and
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
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
Gill now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision
to lift the stay.
While Gill will certainly have the opportunity to pursue
opportunity to offset any recovery against the judgment that has
now been entered against him.
While these circumstances do not
traditionally supporting a stay of the execution of a judgment,
interests of justice warrant the relief sought.
the Court stays the execution of the judgment in this action
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
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?