Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. v. Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 84

IT IS therefore ordered that Defendant Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc.'s emergency motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal 59 is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the various motions to seal 60 66 76 80 are granted. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/13/2020. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - WJ)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Plaintiffs,

7

Case No. 3:17-cv-00563-MMD-WGC
ORDER

v.
8
9

METAL RECOVERY SOLUTIONS INC.,
et al.,

10
Defendants.
11
12

I.

SUMMARY

13

On January 6, 2020, the Court affirmed the arbitration award issued in September

14

2019 in favor of Plaintiff Geo-Logic Associates, Inc. (“GLA”). (ECF No. 5.) Defendant

15

Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc. (“MRS”) waited until February 4, 2020, to file an

16

emergency motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal (“Motion”). 1 (ECF No.

17

59.) 2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies the Motion.

18

II.

BACKGROUND

19

This action stems from the parties’ dispute relating to contracts for engineering and

20

technical services in connection with the mining of precious metals. The relevant

21

background is summarized in the Court’s January 6, 2020, order. (ECF No. 57 at 2–3.)

22

On January 6, 2020, judgment was entered in favor of GLA in the amount of

23

$2,037,586.00 plus prejudgment interest. (ECF No. 58.) On February 4, 2020, MRS filed

24
25
26
27
28

1The

Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s response (ECF Nos. 75, 77 (sealed)) and
Defendant’s reply (ECF Nos. 79, 83 (sealed)).
2MRS

and GLA have separately moved to seal certain portions of the Motion, the
response to the Motion, the response to MRS’s other emergency motion to stay, and the
reply in support of the Motion. (ECF Nos. 60, 66, 76, 80.) This Court has previously sealed
similar exhibits for both parties in this case. (ECF Nos. 55, 56.) The same reasoning
applies here. Therefore, MRS’s and GLA’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 60, 66. 76, 80) are
granted.

1

a notice of appeal (ECF No. 63) and the Motion, asking the Court to stay execution of the

2

judgment pending its appeal (ECF No. 59).

3

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

4

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) provides that after judgment is entered, “a party may obtain

5

a stay by providing a bond or other security.”3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Supersedeas bonds

6

are meant “to preserve the status quo while protecting the non-appealing party's rights

7

pending appeal.” Poplar Grove Planting and Ref. Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc.,

8

600 F.2d 1189, 1190–91 (5th Cir. 1979). However, a district court has “broad discretionary

9

power to waive the bond requirement if it sees fit.” Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp.,

10

881 F.2d 788, 796–97 (9th Cir. 1989), vacated on reh'g on other grounds, 929 F.2d 1358

11

(9th Cir. 1990) (en banc). The burden is on “the moving party to objectively demonstrate

12

the reasons for such a departure.” Poplar, 600 F.2d at 1191. “Courts that have examined

13

this question have held that a waiver should be granted only if the filing of a supersedeas

14

bond would irreparably harm the judgment debtor and, at the same time, such a stay

15

would not unduly endanger the judgment creditor's interest in ultimate recovery.” Quiroz

16

v. Dickerson, No. 3:10-cv-00657-LRH-WGC, 2013 WL 5947459, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 1,

17

2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

18

IV.

DISCUSSION

19

MRS asks the Court to depart from Rule 62(b)’s bond requirement, citing its current

20

liquid asset—that it only has approximately $202,227.00 in its bank account. (ECF No. 61

21

at 4; ECF No. 61-1 at 4.) 4 MRS asks the Court to instead accept its stipulation to

22

paragraph 1 of the preliminary injunction order previously proposed in GLA’s motion for

23

preliminary injunction as a form of alternate security. (ECF No. 61 at 6; ECF No. 47-3 at

24

2.) GLA responds that it will be prejudiced unless MRS posts a full bond. (ECF No. 77 at

25
26
27
28

3Rule

62(b) was amended in 2018 and the “new rule's text makes explicit the
opportunity to post security in a form other than a bond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) advisory
committee’s note to 2018 amendment.
4While

MRS provided tables summarizing its finances since October 2016, it
notably does not include information on any assets it owns that could be used as an
alternate form of security. (ECF No. 61-2.)
2

1

3.) Specifically, GLA argues that MRS’s proposed alternate security is “not security at all”

2

and is “insufficient to protect GLA’s interests.” (Id. at 6 (internal quotations marks

3

omitted).) The Court agrees with GLA.

4

MRS’s proposed alternate security enjoins MRS, Dr. Thom Seal, and Jette Seal

5

from transferring any money or assets from MRS over $1000 without first obtaining court

6

approval. (ECF No. 59-4 at 1–2.) MRS contends that because GLA previously maintained

7

that such an order was necessary to preserve GLA’s interests, this order “adequately

8

protect[s] GLA’s judgment interests while maintaining the status quo . . ..” (ECF No. 61 at

9

6.) But GLA’s interests and the status quo have changed such that the previously

10

proposed protection is no longer sufficient to protect GLA’s interests.

11

Since GLA moved for a preliminary injunction, this Court has confirmed the

12

arbitration award and the Clerk of the Court has entered judgment in GLA’s favor in the

13

amount of $2,037,586.00 plus prejudgment interest accruing from September 13, 2017.

14

(ECF Nos. 57, 58.) Accordingly, GLA’s interests, and the status quo, now include GLA’s

15

right to the money judgment granted by the Court. However, MRS’s proposed order does

16

little to protect GLA’s current interests. At best, it protects only $202,227.00 of the more

17

than $2,000,000.00 of the judgment. But given Dr. Seal’s statements that MRS needs this

18

money to front expenses for the purposes of entering into or performing other contracts

19

(ECF No. 61-1 at 2), there is no guarantee that even this amount would be available to

20

GLA if it prevailed on appeal. As such, the Court finds MRS fails to establish that its

21

proposed alternate security would not unduly endanger GLA’s interest in ultimate

22

recovery.

23

In sum, even assuming the grounds for a stay can be satisfied, 5 the Court finds

24

that MRS has failed to establish that a stay should be issued here without requiring MRS

25

to post a bond. For this reason, the Court denies MRS’s Motion.

26
27
28

5Because

of the Court’s finding that MRS cannot seek to stay execution of
judgment pending appeal without posting adequate security, the Court does not address
whether MRS can meet the five-factor test articulated in Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866
F.2d 902, 904 (7th Cir. 1988).
3

1

V.

CONCLUSION

2

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

3

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

4

determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the

5

motion before the Court.

6
7
8
9
10

It is therefore ordered that Defendant Metal Recovery Solutions, Inc.’s emergency
motion to stay execution of judgment pending appeal (ECF No. 59) is denied.
It is further ordered that the various motions to seal (ECF Nos. 60, 66. 76, 80) are
granted.
DATED THIS 13th day of February 2020.

11
12
13

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4