Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation et al

Filing 749

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 744 motion to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment; Defendant shall post a bond in the amount of the judgment to secure the stay granted herein; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, P l a in tif f , C a se No. 1:05-CV-679 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, W H IR L P O O L MEXICO S.A. de C.V., a n d JOSEPH SHARKEY, D e f e n d a n ts , and W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, C o u n te r- P l a in tif f , v. W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, C o u n ter -D e f e n d a n t. / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Defendant Whirlpool Corporation's motion to stay p ro c e ed in g s to enforce the judgment entered in this case on February 18, 2010, pending D e f en d a n t's filing of a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) o f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the disposition of said motion, and the running of D e f en d a n t's time to file a notice of appeal after the disposition of said motion. (Dkt. No.

7 4 4 .) Defendant further requests that the Court not require a bond or other form of security to secure this stay. The Court believes that the requested stay is appropriate in this matter, a n d pursuant to Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure will grant the stay as re q u e ste d . However, the Court is not convinced that it should depart from the "presumption in favor of requiring a bond," as the circumstances of this case do not warrant such a d e p a rtu re . Lewis v. United Joint Venture, No. 1:07-CV-639, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48616, a t *2 (W.D. Mich. June 10, 2009). Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion to stay proceedings (Dkt. No. 7 4 4 ) is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the motion requests the Court to stay p r o c e e d i n g s to enforce the judgment entered in this case on February 18, 2010, pending D e f e n d a n t's filing of a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) o f the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the disposition of said motion, and the running of D e f en d a n t's time to file a notice of appeal after the disposition of said motion, the motion is GRANTED. To the extent the motion requests the Court to not require any security as a c o n d i tio n of the stay, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 62(b) Defendant shall post a b o n d in the amount of the judgment to secure the stay granted herein.

Dated: March 3, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2