Universal Truck & Equipment Company, Inc. et al v. Caterpillar, Inc. et al

Filing 223

ORDER re: Plaintiffs' #213 MOTION to Stay Applications for Writ and #212 MOTION to Stay Applications for Writ. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 10/30/2015. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CATERPILLAR, INC.,
)
)
Defendant,
)
)
and
)
)
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES
)
CORPORATION and SOUTHWORTH-MILTON, )
INC.,
)
)
Defendants and
)
Counterclaim Plaintiffs. )
___________________________________)
UNIVERSAL TRUCK & EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, INC.; NEW LONDON MINING,
MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, LLC;
NICHOLAS E. CAMBIO; VINCENT A.
CAMBIO; and NICHOLAS E. CAMBIO,
as trustee of THE NICHOLAS E.
CAMBIO, RODNEY A. MALAFRONTE AND
VINCENT A. CAMBIO TRUST,

C.A. No. 10-466 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Caterpillar Financial
Services

Corporation

Caterpillar,

Inc.

(“Cat

(“Caterpillar”)

Financial”)

and

(collectively,

Defendant

“Defendants”)

have each filed five applications for writs of execution against
Plaintiffs.

(ECF

Nos.

202-206

and

ECF

Nos.

207-211,

respectively.)

Plaintiffs, Universal Truck & Equipment Company,

Inc.,

New

London

Mining,

Manufacturing

&

Processing,

LLC,

Nicholas E. Cambio, Vincent A. Cambio, and Nicholas E. Cambio,
Trustee

(“Plaintiffs”)

have

moved

to

stay

the

proceedings

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(h) and 62.1, and have moved to
deny issuance of the various writs of execution.
and 213.)

(ECF Nos. 212

This Court now considers both sets of motions.

“Except

where

stayed

by

statute,

rule

or

order

of

the

Court, a party in whose favor judgment has been entered may
execute on the judgment 14 days after judgment has been entered
. . . .”

LR Cv 69(a).

Ordinarily, a plaintiff “would be

required to post a supersedeas bond if [it] wants execution of
the judgment stayed pending [ ] appeal.”

Trustmark Ins. Co. v.

Gallucci, 193 F.3d 558, 559 (1st Cir. 1999); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
62(d).

Here, Plaintiffs have appealed this Court’s judgment

against them and seek to stay execution of the judgment during
their

appeal.

Plaintiffs,

however,

try

to

avoid

posting

a

supersedeas bond to secure the stay by moving to stay under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 62(h) and 62.1. 1

Plaintiffs’ reliance on these rules

is misplaced.
Rule 62(h) applies to partial judgments issued pursuant to
Rule 54(b).
1

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(h) (“A court may stay the

Plaintiffs do not dispute that Defendants filed valid
writs of execution and that the writs accurately state the
judgment entered against Plaintiffs.
2

enforcement of a final judgment entered under Rule 54(b) until
it enters a later judgment or judgments . . . .”); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(b) (governing judgments “as to one or more, but fewer than
all, claims or parties . . .”).
filed

with

the

district

Rule 62.1 applies to motions

court

because of a pending appeal.

that

the

court

cannot

grant

Typically, this involves motions

for relief from a final judgment brought under Rule 60(b).

See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1, Advisory Committee Notes.
Neither

of

these

rules

applies

to

Plaintiffs’

Plaintiffs do not seek to stay a partial judgment.

case.

The Court

has decided all issues as to all parties in this action.

(See

ECF No. 101 (granting summary judgment in favor of Cat Financial
and
Text

Caterpillar
Order

and

issued

Southworth-Milton,

dismissing
on

Inc.

July

Plaintiffs’
19,

summary

2012
judgment

claims);

(granting
on

all

see

also

Defendant
counts).)

Further, Plaintiffs’ appeal of this Court’s final judgment does
not

deprive

execution.

the

Court

of

its

authority

to

grant

See Trustmark Ins., 193 F.3d at 559.

writs

of

Writs of

execution are not motions for relief from a final judgment; they
concern just the opposite – enforcement of a final judgment.
And the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide parties like
Plaintiffs a tool to avoid execution of a final judgment during

3

an appeal:

obtain a stay of the judgment by supersedeas bond.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to post a
superseadas bond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) within ten
days; in the event Plaintiffs fail to post a bond within ten
days their motions to stay and to deny issuance of writs of
execution will be DENIED and Defendants’ applications for writs
of execution will be GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: October 30, 2015

4