Aqua Shield v. Interpool Pool Cover Team

Filing 190

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 188 Motion to Stay All Proceedings to Enforce the Final Judgment Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/30/14 (alt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
AQUA SHIELD, INC., a New York
Corporation,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING STAY OF
PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE THE
FINAL JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Plaintiff,
v.
INTER POOL COVER TEAM, ALUKOV
HZ SPOL. S.RO., ALUKOV, SPOL.
S.R.O., POOL & SPA ENCLOSURES,
LLC,

Case No. 2:09-CV-13 TS
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

The matter before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings to Enforce
the Final Judgment Pending Appeal. 1 For the reasons set for the below, the Court will deny
Defendants’ Motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 19–20, 2013, the Court held a two-day bench trial in this case, resulting in
judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Initially the Court awarded zero damages and ordered a
permanent injunction. On a Rule 59(e) motion, the Court awarded Plaintiff a reasonable royalty
of $10,800. Costs were taxed in the amount of $1,971.17. Defendants now bring this Motion
seeking to stay proceedings to enforce the final judgment pending appeal without bond, or in the
alternative, until the Court fixes a supersedeas bond.

1

Docket No. 188.

1

II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides that “if an appeal is taken, the appellant
may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond. . . .” 2 “[T]he purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure
an appellee from loss resulting from the stay of execution.” 3 “[A] prevailing party’s appeal
suspends enforcement of the judgment only when the theory of the appeal is inconsistent with
enforcement in the interim.” 4 When the appeal centers on how much one side owes the other,
“the undisputed sums should be paid while the parties address the genuine bones of contention.” 5
Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to a stay of proceedings to enforce the final
judgment is contravened by both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law on the
subject. Defendants filed no appeal and therefore do not dispute the permanent injunction or the
Court’s monetary award. A plain reading of Rule 62(d) illustrates that it is the appellant who
may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond. In its appeal, Plaintiff does not seek to set aside the
permanent injunction and monetary award of the Amended Judgment. 6 Rather, Plaintiff seeks an
enlargement of the Amended Judgment. 7 Seeking enlargement of the judgment does not dispute
the judgment already ordered. 8 Defendants therefore owe Plaintiff at least $12,717.17, a
judgment amount of $10,800 plus costs of $1,971.17. Because Plaintiff’s appeal centers on how
2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).

3

Miami Int’l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1986).

4

BASF Corp. v. Old World Trading Co., 979 F.2d 615, 617 (7th Cir. 1992).

5

Id. (citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980)).

6

See Docket No. 189, at 2.

7

Id.

8

See, e.g., Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Carmine J. Gallucci, 193 F.3d 558, 559 (1st Cir. 1999)
(holding that an appeal which seeks to increase the amount of the judgment does not dispute the
judgment as it already stands).

2

much Defendants owe Plaintiff, the undisputed sum of $12,717.17, should be paid without delay.
To that end, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings to Enforce the Final
Judgment Pending Appeal (Docket No. 188) is DENIED
DATED this 30th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

3