Irwin Industrial Tool Company et al v. Worthington Cylinders Wisconsin, LLC et al

Filing 312

ORDER granting 295 Motion to Stay Pursuant to FRCvP 62(b) Pending Determination of Post-Trial Motions on condition that Defendants post bond in the amount of $14,340,534.00 as soon as possible but in no event later than 10 days from the entry of this Order. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/31/10. (gpb)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA C H AR L O TTE DIVISION C IV IL CASE NO. 3:08cv291

IR W IN INDUSTRIAL TOOL COMPANY, d /b /a BernzOmatic and NEWELL O P E R ATIN G COMPANY,

) ) ) ) P la in t if f s , ) ) ) vs . ) ) ) W O R TH IN G TO N CYLINDERS WISCONSIN, ) L L C , WORTHINGTON CYLINDER ) C O R P O R ATIO N , and WORTHINGTON ) IN D U S TR IE S , INC., ) ) D e fe n d a n ts . ) )

ORDER

TH IS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for S ta y Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) Pending Determination of Post-Trial M o tio n s . [Doc. 295]. The Defendants move for an Order staying the execution of the J u d g m e n t in this case, or any proceedings to enforce that Judgment, p e n d in g disposition of their post-trial motions. As security to BernzOmatic fo r such an Order, the Defendants state that they are prepared to post a s u p e rs e d e a s bond in the amount of $14,340,534.00, which represents the

a m o u n t of the Judgment rendered in BernzOmatic's favor, plus an e s tim a te d award of $1,338,286.47 in prejudgment interest. [Doc. 295]. The Defendants have submitted a proposed form of bond. [Doc. 296-1]. W h ile BernzOmatic does not object to the Judgment being stayed p e n d in g the determination of the Defendants' post-trial motions, B e rn z O m a tic requests that the amount of the proposed bond be increased to at least $16,500,000.00 to account for the amount of the Judgment a lre a d y entered, plus the award of $1,827,820.00 in prejudgment interest, $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in costs, and $1,218,427.00 in attorney's fees that has been re q u e s te d in BernzOmatic's post-trial motions. [Doc. 298]. R u le 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as fo llo w s : O n appropriate terms for the opposing party's s e c u rity, the court may stay the execution of a ju d g m e n t ­ or any proceedings to enforce it ­ pending d is p o s itio n of any of the following motions: ( 1 ) under Rule 50, for judgment as a matter of law; (2 ) under Rule 52(b), to amend the findings or for a d d itio n a l findings; (3 ) under Rule 69, for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment; or ( 4 ) under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order.
2

F e d . R. Civ. P. 62(b). The decision to grant a stay is a matter within the s o u n d discretion of the Court. 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's F e d e ra l Practice § 62.04 (3d ed. 2010); see also Int'l Wood Processors v. P o we r Dry, Inc., 102 F.R.D. 212, 215 (D.S.C. 1984) (noting that courts h a v e "flexibility in assessing adequate security"). H a vin g considered the Defendants' motion and the opposition filed th e re to by BernzOmatic, the Court concludes in the exercise of its d is c re tio n that BernzOmatic's Judgment will be adequately secured during th e pendency of the Defendants' post-trial motions upon the posting of a s u p e rs e d e a s bond in the amount of Fourteen Million, Three Hundred and F o r ty Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty-Four Dollars ($14,340,534.00), a n d that the Defendant should not be required to post a bond at this time with regard to that attorneys fees since the Plaintiff has merely moved for s u c h fees but there has been no determination as to the entitlement to s u c h fees. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendants' M o tio n for Stay Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) Pending Determination of P o s t-T ria l Motions [Doc. 295] is GRANTED on condition that the D e fe n d a n ts post a bond, with joint and several liability, in the amount of
3

F o u rte e n Million, Three Hundred and Forty Thousand, Five Hundred and T h irty-F o u r Dollars ($14,340,534.00) as soon as possible but in no event la te r than ten (10) days from the entry of this Order. Such bond shall be s ig n e d by the surety and its attorney-in-fact and shall include a power of a tto rn e y manifesting the authority of such person to act as the attorney-infa c t for the surety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that the Court grants B e rn z O m a tic 's post-trial motions for awards of prejudgment interest, a tto rn e y's fees, and costs, and the Judgment is subsequently amended to re fle c t such awards, the Court will consider modifying the amount of the s u p e rs e d e a s bond to reflect such amendment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: May 31, 2010

4