Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing L L C v. Carver Inc et al

Filing 683

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 648 Motion To Enforce Liability of Surety Pursuant to FRCP 65.1. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 5/19/15. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
HOLLYBROOK COTTONSEED
PROCESSING, LLC

CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0750

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CARVER, INC., ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE MARK L. HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a “Motion to Enforce Liability of Surety Pursuant to FRCP
65.1.” [Doc. No. 648] filed by Plaintiff Hollybrook Cottonseed Processing, LLC (“Hollybrook”).
Hollybrook moves the Court to enforce the liability of Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland
(“Fidelity”), the surety for Defendant American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company
(“AGLIC”), pursuant to the supersedeas bond filed in the record.
However, since the filing of this motion, on January 23, 2015, AGLIC delivered a check
to counsel for Hollybrook via Federal Express in the total amount of $2,296,788.02, which
consisted of the judgment amount of $2,070,000, court costs in the amount of $47,326.51, and
judicial interest in the amount of $179,461.51.
Notably, on February 10, 2015, the Clerk of Court taxed costs against AGLIC in the total
amount of $45,852.20, after disallowing certain of Hollybrook’s requested costs for editing of
video depositions and for two of their witnesses. [Doc. No. 667].
Rule 65.1 provides as follows:
Whenever these rules . . . require or allow a party to give security, and
security is given through a bond . . . each surety submits to the court’s
jurisdiction and irrevocably appoints the clerk of court as its agent for receiving

service of any papers that affect its liability on the bond . . . . The surety’s
liability may be enforced on motion without an independent action. The
motion and any notice that the court orders may be served on the court clerk,
who must promptly mail a copy of each to every surety whose address is known.
Rule 65.1, thus, merely provides a streamlined procedure for enforcing a bond. It does
not provide that a prevailing party is entitled to an order compelling the surety to pay up to the
contractual obligation, in this case, $2,484,000.00. AGLIC has made payment to Hollybrook in
the principal amount of judgment, an amount for interest, and an amount for costs that is
$1,474.31 greater than the costs actually taxed. The amount to be awarded to Hollybrook for
attorney’s fees and the amount of interest remains in dispute and has yet to be determined.
Additionally, AGLIC previously filed a Motion to Reduce Supersedeas Bond [Doc. No.
668], moving the Court to allow it to reduce its bond from $2,484,000.00 to $187,211.98.1
Hollybrook did not oppose this motion, and it has been granted by the Court. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Hollybrook’s “Motion to Enforce Liability of Surety Pursuant to
FRCP 65.1” [Doc. No. 648] is DENIED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 19th day of May, 2015.

1

This amount is the difference between the original supersedeas bond ($2,484,000.00) and
the payment amount paid by AGLIC to Hollybrook ($2,298,788.02).
2