R & D Financial Solutions et al v. Western Thrift and Loan Corp. et al

Filing 163

ORDER denying 152 Motion to disqualify bonding company and disallow bond (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/11/2011. (PJM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Civil No. 07-4306(DSD/JJG) R & D Financial Solutions, Inc., d/b/a R & D Technologies, Inc., a Minnesota corporation; Dan Pullis, individually; and Robert Maki, individually, Plaintiffs. ORDER v. Western Thrift and Loan Corp., a Nevada corporation; Columbia Trust Company, a Nevada corporation and Homeowners Lending Corp., a California corporation, Defendants. This matter is before the court upon the motion to disqualify bonding company and disallow bond by plaintiffs R&D Financial, Dan Pullis and Robert Maki. On July 15, 2011, defendant Western Thrift & Loan Corp. (Western Thrift) filed a supersedeas bond, written by Western Bond Company (Western Bond). See ECF No. 151. Plaintiffs argue that Western Bond should be disqualified from posting the bond because Western Bond is a “sister, affiliated company, owned by the same persons who own or control” Western Thrift. Pls.’ Mem. Supp. 1. Plaintiffs provide no support for this argument. Moreover, courts regularly accept supersedeas bonds secured by a surety affiliated with the appellant. See, e.g., Cashman Equip. Corp. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-3259, 2008 WL 5000355, at *4 n.4 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2008) (declining to “impose unsupported blanket rule which would work to preclude [appellant] from offering a bond secured by a surety company with the same corporate parent”); Warren v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 03:05-260, 2007 WL 2127839, at *1 (E.D. Ark. July 25, 2007). Plaintiffs further argue that Western Bond should be disqualified because “A.M. Best downgraded the financial strength of” Western Bond. Pls.’ Mem. Supp. 2. Western Thrift represents to the court that it has the ability to pay the judgment, see Blackmon Aff. ¶ 7, and the court has no reason to doubt this representation. Therefore, disqualifying the bond company and disallowing the bond is not warranted. See Warren, 2007 WL 2127839, at *2. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion [ECF No. 152] is denied. Dated: August 11, 2011 s/David S. Doty David S. Doty, Judge United States District Court 2

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?