Cutts v. Richland Holdings, Inc. et al
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 73 plaintiff's motion for stay of execution be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant action is STAYED pending the final resolution of plaintiff's appeal. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/4/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:17-CV-1525 JCM (BNW)
RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., et al..
Presently before the court is plaintiff Michael Cutts’s motion for stay of execution. (ECF
No. 73), to which defendant Richland Holdings, Inc. (“defendant”) filed a response (ECF No. 77).
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, and the court need not recite them in
detail here. As relevant for the purposes of this order, the court dismissed plaintiff’s case with
prejudice (ECF No. 30) and awarded attorney fees and costs to defendant (ECF Nos. 62; 63).
Plaintiff appealed the order dismissing the case with prejudice to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 33).
After defendant began attempting to collect its fees and costs, plaintiff moved for a stay of
execution pending appeal. (ECF No. 73).
On August 13, 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum and partial mandate. (ECF
Nos. 81; 82). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s order as to plaintiff’s misrepresentation and
civil conspiracy claims, holding that they were compulsory counterclaims in plaintiff’s prior state
court action. (ECF No. 81 at 2). The Ninth Circuit reversed the court’s order as to plaintiff’s
abuse of process claim, holding that it was not a compulsory counterclaim and therefore not barred
by claim preclusion. Id. The appeal remains pending regarding plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim. Id. at 3. The Ninth Circuit awaits the Nevada Supreme Court’s
answer to the certified question of whether the FDCPA claim was a compulsory counterclaim. Id.
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
As a result, at least one of plaintiff’s claims will survive defendant’s motion to dismiss
upon remand. Consequently, the court finds it appropriate grant plaintiff’s motion without bond
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d). Cf. Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d
1358, 1367 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that “requesting a stay without bond . . . was warranted by
existing law.”); Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987) (“District
courts have inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds . . . .”); Int’l Telemeter,
Corp. v. Hamlin Int’l Corp., 754 F.2d 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he court has discretion to
allow other forms of judgment guarantee . . . .”); see also United States v. Certain Real & Personal
Property Belonging to Hayes, 943 F.2d 1292, 1296 (11th Cir. 1991) (“A bond requirement may
be waived in a court’s discretion.”); Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.,
786 F.2d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 1986) (“[P]osting a bond entitles the appellant to a stay of execution
pending appeal; that is of course what Rule 62(d) says; if he does not post a bond, he risks the
district judge’s deciding to deny a stay.).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for stay
of execution (ECF No. 73) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant action is STAYED pending the final
resolution of plaintiff’s appeal.
DATED December 4, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
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?