Nola Spice Designs, LLC v. Haydel Enterprises, Inc.
Filing
138
ORDER & REASONS: denying 134 Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Without Supersedeas Bond and, in the Alternative, to Reduce Amount of Supersedeas Bond (Rec. Doc. 134 ) is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that, if Haydel wishes to stay the enforcement of this judgment, it must post a supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment plus twenty (20) per cent, which amounts to $37,205.58, within ten (10) days of this order. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 11/20/13. (sek, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
NOLA SPICE DESIGNS, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 12-2515
HAYDEL ENTERPRISES, d/b/a
HAYDEL'S BAKERY
SECTION: "J" (2)
ORDER & REASONS
Before
("Haydel")'s
the
Court
Motion
to
is
Defendant
Stay
Haydel
Execution
of
Enterprises,
Judgment
Inc.
Without
Supersedeas Bond and, in the Alternative, to Reduce Amount of
Supersedeas
Designs,
LLC
Bond
(Rec.
("Nola
Doc.
Spice")'s
134)
and
opposition
Plaintiff
thereto.
Nola
(Rec.
Spice
Doc.
136). Defendant's motion was set for hearing on November 20,
2013, on the briefs. Having considered the motions and memoranda
of counsel, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds
that Defendant's motion should be DENIED for the reasons set
forth more fully below.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of a trademark and copyright dispute
between the parties. Following oral argument on the parties'
1
cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court entered judgment in
favor of Nola Spice on the majority of the claims presented in
this matter, and Haydel subsequently filed a notice of appeal.
The Court then granted Nola Spice's motion for attorneys' fees
and costs, which Haydel also appeals. On October 28, 2013, Haydel
filed
the
instant
motion
in
which
it
seeks
a
stay
of
the
enforcement of judgment either without posting supersedeas bond
or with posting of a reduced bond. Haydel also requests the
cancellation of judgment liens that Nola Spice filed against it
in Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish.
LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION
When deciding a motion to stay the enforcement of judgment
without posting supersedeas bond, "the burden is on the moving
party
to
objectively
demonstrate
the
reasons
for
such
a
departure. It is not the burden of the judgment creditor to
initiate contrary proof." Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co., Inc.
v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir.
1979). The Court in Poplar Grove identified two situations that
would merit departure from the ordinary requirement of posting
bond: (1) when "a judgment debtor objectively demonstrates a
present financial ability to facilely respond to a money judgment
and
presents
to
the
court
a
financially
secure
plan
for
maintaining that same degree of solvency during the period of an
2
appeal," or (2) when "the judgment debtor's present financial
condition is such that the posting of a full bond would impose an
undue financial burden." Id.
More recently, in the Southern District of Texas, a court
listed
similar
considerations,
but
also
added
to
the
list.
Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. NL Indus., No. 05-4160, 2008
WL
2787247
(S.D.
Tex.
July
16,
2008)
The
Halliburton
court
considered:
(1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the
amount of time required to obtain a judgment after it
is affirmed on appeal; (3) the degree of confidence
that the district court has in the ability of funds to
pay the judgment; (4) whether the defendant's ability
to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of a bond
would be a waste of money; and (5) whether the
defendant is in such a precarious financial situation
that the requirement to post a bond would place other
creditors of the defendant in an insecure position.
Id.
In the instant matter, Nola Spice aptly points out that
Haydel does not objectively prove anything in its motion because
it fails to present any proof of its financial condition that
goes beyond counsel's argument in the briefs. Therefore, it is
impossible for the Court to determine if Haydel has the financial
ability to respond to the judgment with ease or if posting a bond
would financially harm Haydel. Further, even if such proof did
exist,
there
is
nothing
unusual
3
or
extraordinary
about
this
matter, and the Court sees no reason to depart from the usual
requirement that the judgment debtor post a supersedeas bond to
obtain a stay of the enforcement of the judgment. As such, if
Haydel wishes to stay the enforcement of this judgment, it must
post a supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment, plus
twenty (20) per cent, which amounts to $37,205.58,1 within ten
(10) days of this order. See L.R. 62.2.
Finally, with respect to Haydel's request to cancel the
judgment liens against it by Nola Spice, the Court is without
authority to take such actions as there was no stay in place at
the time the liens were levied against Haydel.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay Execution of
Judgment Without Supersedeas Bond and, in the Alternative, to
Reduce Amount of Supersedeas Bond (Rec. Doc. 134) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if Haydel wishes to stay the
enforcement of this judgment, it must post a supersedeas bond in
the amount of the judgment plus twenty (20) per cent, which
amounts to $37,205.58, within ten (10) days of this order.
1
The Court entered a final judgment in the amount of $31,004.65. (Rec.
Doc. 124) $31,004.65 * 120% = $37,305.58
4
New Orleans, Louisiana this 20th day of November, 2013.
____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?