Feliciano Munoz et al v. Rebarber Ocasio

Filing 307

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT granting in part and denying in part 277 Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees as to 272 Bill of Costs filed by Fred J. Rebarber-Ocasio, granting in part and defe rring ruling in part on 302 Motion for Execution of Judgment ; denying 303 Defendants Motion under Rule 62. Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's bill of costs and motion for award of attorney's fees by 12/15/2022 . Rebarber-Ocasio to supplement his motion for order within two weeks of the date of this order to provide the Court with accurate prejudgment and postjudgment interest computations. Defendants shall file any objections within two weeks. Signed by Judge John Woodcock, Jr on 12/1/2022. (cs)

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
FRED J. REBARBER-OCASIO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LUIS FELICIANO-MUNOZ, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
)
LUIS FELICIANO-MUNOZ, et al.
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
FRED J. REBARBER-OCASIO,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. 3:18-cv-01218-JAW

No. 3:16-cv-02719-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
The Court grants a judgment creditor’s motion for execution of judgment over
the judgment debtors’ objection, declines to grant the judgment debtors’ motion for
stay of execution, clarifies the law applicable to postjudgment interest, defers ruling
on pre- and post-judgment interest, and orders the defendants to respond to the
pending bill of costs and motion for award of attorney’s fees.
I.

BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2022, at the close of an eight-day civil trial, a federal jury issued a

verdict in favor of Fred J. Rebarber-Ocasio against Luis Feliciano-Muñoz in the total
amount of $534,836.00 and jointly and severally against Christel Bengoa and the

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 8

Bengoa/Feliciano Conjugal Partnership in the amount of $141,400.00, resulting in a
total judgment of $534,836.00 against Mr. Feliciano-Muñoz of which Ms. Bengoa and
the Bengoa/Feliciano Conjugal Partnership are jointly and severally liable for
$141,400.00. J. at 1-2 (ECF No. 271).
On July 27, 2022, Mr. Feliciano-Muñoz, Ms. Bengoa, and the Bengoa/Feliciano
Conjugal Partnership (Defendants) moved for a new trial or amended judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Mot. under Rule 59 for New Trial and/or
Am. J. (ECF No. 279). On August 8, 2022, Mr. Rebarber-Ocasio responded, urging
the Court to deny the motion in part because “the Defendants/Plaintiffs mention
instances in which evidence was presented to the Jury yet fail to make a single
specific reference to the specific place in the transcripts or Court record to support
their arguments.” Resp. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. under Rule 59 for New Trial and/or
Am. J. (DN 279) at 2 (ECF No. 281). On August 15, 2022, Defendants moved to be
allowed to amend their Rule 59 motion “with specific quotes from the record.” Mot.
Regarding Trial Tr. (ECF No. 282). On August 23, 2022, the Court granted the
Defendants’ motion over Mr. Rebarber’s objection.

Order (ECF No. 285).

On

November 27, 2022, the court reporter filed the first completed transcript for the trial
proceedings on June 21, 2022, Jury Trial Proceedings (ECF No. 305), and on
November 29, 2022, the second completed transcript for the trial proceedings on June
22, 2022. Jury Trial Proceedings (ECF No. 306).
On October 3, 2022, Mr. Rebarber moved for an order requesting an execution
on the judgment and requiring the Defendants to file a supersedeas bond. Mot. Req.

2

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 8

Order (ECF No. 293) (Pl.’s Mot.). On November 2, 2022, the Court issued an order,
explaining the current state of the law on executions following a judgment. Order on
Mot. for Order (ECF No. 301) (Order). In its November 2, 2022 order, the Court
granted the Defendants two weeks to “take a formal position pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 62” concerning Mr. Rebarber’s request for writ of execution.
Id. at 1, 8. On November 9, 2022, Mr. Rebarber formally moved for an execution on
the judgment. Pl.’s Mot. (ECF No. 302) (Pl.’s Mot.). On November 15, 2022, the
Defendants responded.

Mot. under Rule 62 (ECF No. 303) (Defs.’ Opp’n).

The

Defendants framed their response as a motion under Rule 62; Mr. Rebarber did not
respond.
II.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.

Fred J. Rebarber’s Motion

In his motion for execution, Mr. Rebarber largely tracks this Court’s order
dated November 2, 2022 in demanding the immediate issuance of a writ of execution.
Pl.’s Mot. at 1-3. Citing Rule 44.3 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr.
Rebarber also requests post-judgment interest on the judgment amount plus costs
and attorney’s fees. Id. at 3-5. Finally, Mr. Rebarber demands an award of attorney’s
fees and costs.
B.

The Defendants’ Motion and Response

On November 15, 2022, the Defendants filed a combined motion and their
opposition. Defs.’ Opp’n at 1-3. The Defendants pressed their contention that the
jury verdict is in error and that the jury should have awarded Mr. Rebarber only

3

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 8

$97,500.

Id. at 3.

Indeed, when Mr. Feliciano’s claim for reimbursement is

considered, the Defendants contend that Mr. Rebarber owes the Defendants $17,500.
Id. The Defendants urge the Court not to require a bond or in the alternative, the
Defendants say that Mr. Feliciano will post a bond for “an amount not higher than
$99,531.25 ($97,500 + $2,031.25 interest).” Id.
III.

DISCUSSION
A.

Motion for Writ of Execution

The Court is nonplussed by the Defendants’ filing. It is as if the jury verdict,
awarding $534,836.00 were advisory, suggesting a resolution that the Defendants are
free to disregard. This is not the law. Of course, the Defendants are free to press any
arguments they wish with this Court in their Rule 59 motion and with the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit in any appeal. But, as the Court explained in detail in
its November 2, 2022 order, “Mr. Rebarber is currently entitled to an execution on
the judgment issued on July 1, 2022 by the Clerk’s Office in the total amount of
$534,836.00 against Luis Feliciano-Muñoz and against Crystal Bengoa and their
conjugal partnership in the amount of $141,400.00.” Order at 6-7.
The “burden to obtain a stay of execution rests with Mr. Feliciano.” Id. at 7.
As the Court explained in detail, Mr. Feliciano could meet the requirements for a stay
of writ of execution by filing a bond, by presenting other evidence of security, or by
demonstrating to the Court that “his ability to pay is so plain that the posting of a
bond would be a waste of money.” Id. at 7-8 (quoting Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig,
296 F.3d 13, 17 (1st Cir. 2022)). Simply put, except to express their disagreement

4

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 5 of 8

with the verdict, the Defendants did not respond to the Court’s order. The Defendants
have asserted the position that the Court should not require a bond at all, or in the
alternative, they proposed to file a bond for less than a fifth of the amount of the
verdict. But they offered no means (such as a supersedeas bond, other security, or a
financial statement) that would allow the Court to defer issuance of a writ of
execution pending appeal based on their compliance with Rule 62. Specifically, the
Defendants are silent about how the Court should apply the five criteria the Court
described in its Order on the Motion for Order:
(1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time
required to obtain a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3) the
degree of confidence that the district court has in the availability of
funds to pay the judgment; (4) whether the defendant’s ability to pay
the judgment is so plain that the cost of a bond would be a waste of
money; and (5) whether the defendant is in such a precarious
financial situation that the requirement to post a bond would place
other creditors of the defendant in an insecure position.
Order at 6 (quoting Augustin v. Nassau Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t (In re Nassau Cty. Strip
Search Cases), 783 F.3d 414, 417-18 (2d Cir. 2015)).
The Defendants have ignored not only the jury verdict and judgment against
them, but they have also substantially ignored the Court’s November 2, 2022 order.
They have given the Court no legal basis not to grant Mr. Rebarber’s motion for writ
of execution.
B.

Postjudgment Interest 1

By contrast, prejudgment interest is a matter of Puerto Rico law. See Holsum de P.R., Inc. v.
Compass Indus. Grp. LLC, 3:18-cv-2004-JAW, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197067, at *4-5 (D.P.R. Oct. 26,
2022) (citing Article 1061, 31 L.P.R.A. § 3025).
1

5

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 6 of 8

Although Mr. Rebarber cites Puerto Rico state law for the imposition of
postjudgment interest, he is wrong.

Federal law, not state law, “governs the

entitlement to postjudgment interest in any federal civil suit, including a diversity
suit such as the instant action.”

Vazquez-Filippetti v. Cooperativa de Seguros

Múltiples de P.R., 723 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir. 2013).

“Section 1961(a) of the Judicial

Code entitles the prevailing party in federal court to postjudgment interest ‘from the
date of entry of judgment’ at the rate fixed in the statute.” Id. Section 1961(a)
provides in part:
Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the
judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant
maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding[.] the date of
the judgment.
28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).

As Mr. Rebarber erroneously assumed that postjudgment

interest would be equal to prejudgment interest, his interest calculations in his
motion are in error and will have to be resubmitted. The Court is therefore ordering
Mr. Rebarber to supplement his demand for postjudgment interest to reflect the
correct figures within two weeks of the date of this order and allowing the Defendants
two weeks to object. Furthermore, Mr. Rebarber presented no prejudgment interest
calculations.
C.

Court Costs and Attorney’s Fees

On July 11, 2022, Mr. Rebarber filed with the Court his bill of costs in the
amount of $64,692.63 and for attorney’s fees in the amount of $110,000 with the
Court. Mot. for Costs and Att’y Fees (ECF No. 272). On July 25, 2022, the Defendants

6

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 7 of 8

moved to extend the time within which they were required to respond to the bill of
costs until thirty days after the Court ruled on their contemplated post-judgment
motion to vacate the jury verdict. Mot. for Extension of Time to Oppose Mot. for Costs
and Att’y Fees at 1 (ECF No. 277). On July 26, 2022, Mr. Rebarber opposed the
Defendants’ motion for extension. Mot. in Opp’n to Pl./Def.’s Mot. for an Extension
of Time to Oppose to Mot. for Costs and Atty’s Fees (ECF No. 278).
The Court has not yet acted on the motion for extension; however, in view of
its conclusion that Mr. Rebarber is entitled to an immediate execution on the
judgment, the Court is granting the motion for extension in part and denying it in
part, ordering the Defendants to respond within two weeks of the date of this order
to Mr. Rebarber’s bill of costs and motion for award of attorney’s fees. Mr. Rebarber
may wish to withhold his request for an execution on the judgment until his bill of
costs and attorney’s fee issues are resolved, but the Court is aware of no authority
requiring him to do so.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS so much of Fred J. Rebarber-Ocasio’s Motion for Order

(ECF No. 302) as demands an execution of the judgment of this Court dated July 1,
2022 and defers ruling on his request for postjudgment interest. The Court DENIES
the Defendants’ Motion under Rule 62 (ECF No. 303). The Court GRANTS in part
and DENIES in part the Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Oppose Motion
for Costs and Attorney Fees (ECF No. 277) and ORDERS the Defendants to respond
to the Plaintiff’s bill of costs and motion for award of attorney’s fees within two weeks

7

Case 3:16-cv-02719-JAW Document 307 Filed 12/01/22 Page 8 of 8

of the date of this Order. Finally, the Court ORDERS Fred J. Rebarber-Ocasio to
supplement his motion for order within two weeks of the date of this order to provide
the Court with accurate prejudgment and postjudgment interest computations and
ORDERS the Defendants to file any objections within two weeks.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of December, 2022

8