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)
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?