Aqua Shield v. Interpool Pool Cover Team

Filing 212

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER denying without prejudice 205 Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 10/26/2015. (blh)

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

v.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO STAY ALL PROCEEEDINGS TO
ENFORCE THE FINAL JUDGMENT
PENDING APPEAL

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

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay all Proceedings to Enforce
the Final Judgment Pending Appeal. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the
Motion without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 17, 2015, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendants, awarding Plaintiff damages in the amount of $216,000, plus costs in the amount of
$1,971.17. Both parties have since appealed the Court’s judgment and Defendants now seek a
stay of all proceedings to enforce the judgment pending appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides: “If an appeal is taken, the appellant may
obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of
appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court
approves the bond.”

1

“The purpose of requiring a supersedeas bond pending appeal ‘is to secure the judgment
throughout the appeal process against the possibility of the judgment debtor’s insolvency.’
Typically, the amount of the bond matches the full amount of the judgment.” 1 “District courts,
however, have inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds.” 2
Courts consider a number of factors in determining whether to waive or reduce the bond
requirement, including: (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. 3
While acknowledging these factors, Defendants provide no evidence or argument on
them. Defendants simply make the conclusory statement that “Plaintiff’s interest would be
protected despite the absence of a supersedeas bond.” 4 However, as Plaintiff points out, there
are legitimate concerns regarding Defendants’ ability and willingness to satisfy the judgment.
Without more, the Court is unable to conclude that Defendants are entitled to a stay absent the
posting of a supersedeas bond.
1

Olcott v. Del. Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538, 1559 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Grubb v. FDIC,
883 F.2d 222, 226 (10th Cir. 1987)); see also Miami Int’l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871,
873 (10th Cir. 1986) (stating that “the purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure an appellee
from loss resulting from the stay of execution and that a full supersedeas bond should be the
requirement in normal circumstances”).
2

Miami Int’l Realty Co., 807 F.2d at 873.

3

See Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904–05 (7th Cir. 1988).

4

Docket No. 205, at 4.
2

In the alternative, Defendants request a stay until the Court has fixed the appropriate
amount of the supersedeas bond. As stated, typically the bond matches the full amount of the
judgment. Defendants have presented nothing to suggest that the Court should deviate from the
general rule in this case. Therefore, the Court must reject this request.
III. CONCLUSION
It is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay all Proceedings to Enforce the Final
Judgment Pending Appeal (Docket No. 205) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants
may renew their Motion upon the posting of a supersedeas bond in the full amount of the
judgment.
DATED this 26th day of October, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

3