City of Clinton Arkansas v. Pilgrims Pride Corporation

Filing 358

MEMORANDUM ORDER - the # 324 Motion to Stay is DENIED and # 336 Motion to Show Cause Why Bond Should Not Be Set is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S Payne on 3/1/12. (ehs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
SHELIA ADAMS and JAMES ADAMS,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION,
Defendant

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-397-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Currently before the Court are two motions in this matter. First, the defendant filed a
Motion to Stay pending appeal on October 21, 2011 (Dkt. 324). Defendant has now appealed the
Judgment entered under Rule 54(b) against defendant following the bench trial of the first group
of plaintiffs. Defendant argues that it will aid judicial efficiency to await appellate review of
their objections to that Judgment. Defendant concedes that it will likely take a year for such
review to be completed. What defendant does not acknowledge is that any action by the Court of
Appeals will not likely dispose of the remaining claims entirely. It is important to bear in mind
that the remaining claims are brought by separate plaintiffs, who have not yet had their day in
court and who should not have to await the outcome of even closely related claims brought by
others.
This Court originally set all of the claims by all of the plaintiffs for trial serially
beginning in June of 2011. (Dkt. 73). The Judgment under Rule 54(b) was entered before the
last three groups of plaintiffs were reached for trial because the trial judge was set to retire and
needed to enter his findings of fact and conclusions of law before doing so, in order to avoid the
need for his successor to receive that evidence anew. This was not a situation where appellate

review was deemed necessary before proceeding with the remaining plaintiffs. Having reviewed
the briefs and the record in this matter, the Motion to Stay is DENIED.
.

Second is the Motion by Plaintiffs filed on November 19, 2011 (Dkt. 336) for an Order to

Show Cause Why Bond Should Not Be Set, which seeks to compel defendant to post an appeal
bond. Defendant has apparently chosen to appeal without seeking a stay of enforcement of the
judgment under Rule 62. Defendant appears to be willing to rely upon the Bankruptcy Court to
protect it from efforts to collect on the Judgment while the appeal is pending. That is a choice
defendant is entitled to make. Plaintiffs have cited no authority, and the Court is not aware of
any, that would justify the Court in requiring a bond absent a stay under Rule 62. Accordingly,
having reviewed the briefs and the record, this motion (Dkt. 336) is DENIED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.

SIGNED this 1st day of March, 2012.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE