Securities And Exchange Commission v. Torchia et al
Filing
414
OPINION AND ORDER denying Sonya Gravitts Motion to Stay Pending Appeal 336 . Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/2/17. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:15-cv-3904-WSD
JAMES A. TORCHIA, CREDIT
NATION CAPITAL, LLC, CREDIT
NATION ACCEPTANCE, LLC,
CREDIT NATION AUTO SALES,
LLC, AMERICAN MOTOR
CREDIT, LLC, and SPAGHETTI
JUNCTION, LLC,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Sonya Gravitt’s Motion to Stay Pending
Appeal [336] (“Motion to Stay”).
I.
BACKGROUND1
On February 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order [327] (“Contempt Order”)
holding Gravitt in contempt of the Court’s August 23, 2016, Order [206] (“August
1
The Court here sets forth the facts pertinent to Ms. Gravitt’s Motion to Stay.
A more complete description of the facts underlying Ms. Gravitt’s involvement in
this action is set forth in the Court’s February 2, 2017, Order [327].
23rd Order”). The Court required Gravitt to pay Receiver Al Hill’s (“Receiver”)
attorneys’ fees incurred in his attempts to enforce compliance with the August 23rd
Order. The Court ordered:
To purge herself of contempt, Gravitt shall, on or before 5:00 p.m. on
February 6, 2017, (1) sign and transmit to the Receiver the assignment
documents provided by the Receiver or pay the Receiver $1,439.79 in
fictitious profits; and (2) pay the Receiver $12,304 in attorneys’ fees.
If Gravitt fails to purge herself of contempt on or before 5:00 p.m. on
February 6, 2017, Gravitt is required to pay into the registry of the
Court $500 per day until she purges herself of contempt. If Gravitt
fails to purge herself of contempt on or before 5:00 p.m.
February 13, 2017, the Court orders the United States Marshals
Service to take Gravitt into custody, and Gravitt shall be incarcerated
until she purges herself of contempt. In all cases, Gravitt is required
to pay the Receiver the amount of $12,304 ordered by the Court to
compensate the Receiver for having to pursue Gravitt’s contempt.
(Contempt Order at 11-12).
On February 6, 2017, at approximately 4 p.m., Gravitt remitted a cash
payment to the Receiver of $1,500.00. ([330] at 1). On February 7, 2017, at
approximately 3:30 p.m., the Receiver received a certified check from Gravitt in
the amount of $12,304.00. (Id.). The same day, Gravitt deposited $500.00 into the
registry of the Court. (February 7, 2017, Docket Entry).
On February 10, 2017, Gravitt filed her Notice of Appeal [335] of the
Court’s Contempt Order. The same day, she filed her Motion to Stay. Gravitt
seeks, pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a stay of the
2
enforcement of the Contempt Order pending the disposition of her appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Specifically, she seeks a
return of “all purge[d] amounts paid by Ms. Gravitt pending appeal . . . .” (Mot. to
Stay at 25).
II.
DISCUSSION
As a rule, an appeal does not automatically stay the enforcement of a
judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 permits
a party to apply to the district court for “a stay of the judgment or order of a district
court pending appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A).2 Rule 62(d) provides that: “If
an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . . The
bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the
order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the
bond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). “The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve
the status quo while protecting the non-appealing party’s rights pending appeal.”
2
The Court retains jurisdiction to grant a stay of its judgment, despite the
filing of a notice of appeal. See Rakovich v. Wade, 834 F.2d 673, 674 (7th Cir.
1987) (“a notice of appeal does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over a
motion for stay of its judgment”).
3
Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d
1189, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1979).3
Here, because Gravitt already remitted to the Receiver and the registry of the
Court the payments required under the Court’s Contempt Order, issuing a stay
would have no effect. In other words, there is nothing to stay with respect to the
Contempt Order, because Gravitt has already executed the requirements of the
Contempt Order. What Gravitt seeks, instead, is to undo her execution of the
Contempt Order. Gravitt does not provide any authority to support such a request.
To the contrary, courts have held that “[s]tays issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)
clearly do not have retroactive effect.” Hardwick v. Clarke, No. CIV. S-06-672
LKK, 2010 WL 5437196, at *3 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2010); see also Ribbens
Intern., S.A. de C.V.v. Transp. Intern. Pool, Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1144 (C.D.
Cal. 1999) (“The absence of any reference to retroactive extinguishment of preexisting execution efforts in Rule 62(d), in the context of this relatively detailed
procedural scheme, further supports the conclusion that no such effect was
intended.”); Johns v. Rozet, 826 F. Supp. 565, 568 (D.D.C. 1993) (“any stay
granted at this time would not have retroactive effect upon garnishment
3
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en
banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the
former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
4
proceedings commenced prior to the stay.”); Moore’s Federal Practice § 62.03 (in
the context of a stay issued under Fed. Rule Civ. P 62(d), “any execution had on
the judgment before the stay becomes effective is not automatically set aside or
rendered void even after the stay becomes effective”). Because there is no
execution to stay, Gravitt’s Motion to Stay is denied.4
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sonya Gravitt’s Motion to Stay Pending
Appeal [336] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2017.
4
To the extent Gravitt also seeks a stay of “any other proceedings in
connection with this action related to . . . Direct Investors[] and parties similarly
situated pending the disposition” of the appeal, (Mot. to Stay at 1), Gravitt does not
have standing to seek a stay on behalf of these individuals and entities. It is also
unclear what “other proceedings” Gravitt seeks to stay.
5
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?