Balvin v. Rain and Hail, LLC

Filing 28

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Stay. The Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order 21 is stayed pending appeal. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 9/24/18. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

SOUTHERN DIVISION
*

TERRY R. BALVIN,

*

CIV 18-4049

*

Plaintiff,

*
*

vs.

*
*

RAIN AND HAIL, LLC,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STAY ENFORCEMENT

*

OF COURT'S ORDER

*

Defendants.

*
*

Defendant, Rain and Hail, LLC,has moved pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 62
and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8, for an order to stay, pending appeal, this Court's
Memorandum Opinion and Order filed August21,2018. Counsel for Plaintiff,Terry Balvin,advised
the Court by telephone that Plaintiff has no objection to the motion for a stay.

This case arises from Balvin's crop insurance claim that was submitted to Rain and Hail and
then denied in arbitration. In its August 21 Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court upheld the
arbitrator's ruling that Balvin abandoned his crop but held that the arbitrator erred by failing to
submit the procedure for determining appraised value(when a production Worksheet is not done and
Appraisal Worksheets are not signed) to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) for
interpretation. Rain and Hail has filed a notice of appeal of this latter holding and seeks to stay
enforcement ofthe Court's August 21 order pending appeal.
Rain and Hail contends that the Court should apply the test for a stay pending appeal set forth
by the Supreme Court in FZiVton v. Braunskill,481 U.S. 770(1987). Under this test, courts consider
four factors: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed
on the merits;(2)whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;(3)whether issuance
ofthe stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and(4) where the
public interest lies."Id. at 776.

In addressing the first factor, Rain and Hail argues that because Balvin ahandoned his crop,
his loss is not covered by his insurance policy and the procedure thfe arbitrator used to calculate
Balvin's loss no longer has any bearing. With no objection by Balvin to this argument.Rain and Hail
has made a strong showing it is likely to succeed on the merits.

In addressing the second factor, whether it will he irreparably injured absent a stay. Rain and
Hail argues enforcement ofthe Court's order requiring remand for the arbitrator to obtain guidance
from the FCIC on proper procedure would open the door for simultaneous proceedings before the
arbitrator, the FCIC, and the Eighth Circuit. Rain and Hail would be forced to expend resources

preparing for proceedings that may become moot once the Eighth Circuit issues its ruling. Rain and
Hail has demonstrated sufficient potential ofirreparable harm that would justify a stay.

In addition, a stay would benefit Balvin and the public ifit would alleviate the need to expend
Balvin's, the arbitrator's and the FClC's time and resources on arbitration should the need for
arbitration later become moot after the Eighth Circuit's ruling.

Since consideration of all four Hilton factors supports granting the request to stay,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Stay Enforcement of the Court's Order

Pending Appeal,Doc.22,is granted,and the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order,Doc.
21, is stayed pending appeal.

Dated this ^fj^'Say of September, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

! Uawrence L. Piersol

Wnited States District Judge
ATTEST:

MATTHEWy^THELl^N,CLERK
BY: