Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment v. DIESELSellerz.com et al
Filing
222
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER Conditionally Granting 219 Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 8/20/2020. (lnp)
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5779 Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UTAH PHYSICIANS FOR A HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT, INC.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION
TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2:17-cv-00032-RJS
DIESEL POWER GEAR, LLC; B&W
AUTO, LLC d/b/a SPARKS MOTORS, LLC;
DAVID W. SPARKS; JOSHUA STUART;
and KEATON HOSKINS,
Chief Judge Robert J. Shelby
Defendants.
The court has before it Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment.1
For the following reasons, the Emergency Motion is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED as outlined
in this Order.
BACKGROUND
On March 10, 2020, this court entered a judgment for civil penalties against Defendants.2
That judgment included the following amounts against Defendants payable to the United States:
(1) Hoskins in the amount of $86,107; (2) B&W Auto, LLC (B&W), in the amount of $114,426;
(3) B&W and Sparks, jointly and severally, in the amount of $333,700; (4) Diesel Power Gear,
LLC (DPG), Sparks, and Stuart, jointly and severally, in the amount of $227,218.3 The
1
Dkt. 219.
2
Dkt. 169.
3
Id. ¶ 1(a)–(d).
1
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5780 Page 2 of 7
judgment included $90,000 payable to Davis County, State of Utah jointly and severally against
B&W, Sparks, and DPG.4
Defendants appealed the judgment to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals through their
Notice of Appeal filed on April 7, 2020.5
Defendants have not satisfied the judgment. In response to Defendants’ failure to satisfy
the judgment, Plaintiff Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment (UPHE) filed three motions
with the court in July 2020. First, UPHE filed a motion for supplemental discovery.6 The court
granted that motion on August 14, 2020, permitting UPHE to conduct discovery, including an
evidentiary hearing, on Defendants’ assets that are available to satisfy the judgment.7 Second,
UPHE filed a motion for a bond for its costs on appeal.8 The court granted that motion and
ordered Defendants to file a bond of $69,950.9 Third, UPHE filed a motion for an order to show
cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for failing to satisfy the judgment.10 The
court denied that motion without prejudice, allowing UPHE to refile its motion for order to show
cause after it completes the supplemental discovery.11
Id. ¶ 2. These judgments are referred to collectively as “the judgment” throughout this order unless otherwise
indicated.
4
5
Dkt. 172.
6
Dkt. 188.
7
Dkt. 206 at 1–2.
8
Dkt. 189.
9
Dkt. 205 at 1.
10
Dkt. 190.
11
Dkt. 207 at 1.
2
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5781 Page 3 of 7
UPHE also began applying for and obtaining writs of garnishment to satisfy the
judgment12 and moved the court for a charging order that would allow UPHE to charge Sparks’
and Stuarts’ interests in various limited liability companies to satisfy the judgment.13
To obtain a stay on UPHE’s collection efforts, Defendants filed their Emergency Motion
on August 19, 2020.14 In support of their Emergency Motion, Defendants submit declarations
from Sparks,15 Stuart,16 and Hoskins.17 In short, the declarations paint a grim financial picture
for the Defendants and their businesses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, tax liabilities, and
UPHE’s collection efforts. This picture includes references to the Defendants’ inability to pay
the judgment in full,18 the foreclosure of Sparks’ home,19 potential insolvency and bankruptcy,20
the impending termination of forty-five employees,21 and the possible inability to pay child
support.22 Further, the declarations indicate Defendants attempted to obtain financing to post a
supersedeas bond in full satisfaction of the judgment, but they were unable to do so.23
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, Defendants request the court stay
UPHE’s execution of the judgment pending resolution of the appeal in exchange for the
12
See Dkts. 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 209, 210, 211, 212, 220, 221.
Dkt. 203 at 1–2. The court has not issued a decision on UPHE’s motion for a charging order because it is not yet
ripe for decision as it was filed August 13, 2020.
13
14
Dkt. 219.
15
Dkt. 219-1 (Sparks Decl.).
16
Dkt. 219-2 (Stuart Decl.).
17
Dkt. 219-3 (Hoskins Decl.).
18
Dkt. 219-1 (Sparks Decl.) ¶ 4; Dkt. 219-3 (Hoskins Decl.) ¶ 4.
19
Dkt. 219-1 (Sparks Decl.) ¶ 13.
20
Dkt. 219-1 (Sparks Decl.) ¶ 20; Dkt. 219-2 (Stuart Decl.) ¶¶ 16–17.
21
Dkt. 219-2 (Stuart Decl.) ¶ 16.
22
Dkt. 219-3 (Hoskins Decl.) ¶ 8.
23
Dkt. 219-2 (Stuart Decl.) ¶¶ 5–6.
3
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5782 Page 4 of 7
following: (1) $50,000 from DPG;24 (2) $7,500 from DPG each month until the appeal is
resolved;25 (3) $1,000 from Sparks each month until the appeal is resolved;26 (4) $1,000 from
Stuart each month until the appeal is resolved;27 (5) $10,000 from Hoskins;28 (6) $750 from
Hoskins each month until the appeal is resolved;29 and (7) an injunction precluding Sparks and
Stuart from taking distributions beyond ordinary and reasonable salaries from DieselSellerz.com,
LLC, B&W, and DPG until the appeal is resolved.30
LEGAL STANDARD
During an appeal, a judgment debtor may obtain a stay on the execution of a judgment
“by providing a bond or other security” under Rule 62(b).31 “The stay takes effect when the
court approves the bond or other security and remains in effect for the time specified in the bond
or security.”32 Although a supersedeas bond is usually for the full amount of a judgment, “the
district court has discretion in setting the amount.”33 Indeed, the court has “inherent authority to
waive the requirement of a supersedeas bond or to reduce the amount of the bond to prevent
irreparable harm to the judgment debtor.”34 To determine a bond’s amount, the court applies
24
Dkt. 219 at 8.
25
Id.
26
Id. at 9.
27
Id.
28
Id. at 10.
29
Id.
30
Id. at 9. Neither Sparks nor Stuart define what they mean by an “ordinary and reasonable salary.”
31
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b).
32
Id.
33
Strong v. Laubach, 443 F.3d 1297, 1299 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
Am. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Bond Int’l Ltd., Case No. 06-CV-0317-CVE-FHM, 2007 WL 1187997, at *2 (N.D. Okla.
April 19, 2007) (citing Miami Int’l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1986)).
34
4
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5783 Page 5 of 7
“equitable principles,”35 balancing the judgment creditor’s “need to secure its judgment during
the appeal against the potential harm to defendants from posting a supersedeas bond.”36
ANALYSIS
Balancing the parties’ interests as best it can on the incomplete record before it, the court
concludes UPHE’s execution of the judgment should be conditionally stayed. Defendants have
supplied sufficient information to make at least an initial showing that they are unable to post a
bond for the full amount of the judgment. If the court required Defendants to do so, Defendants
argue they likely would be irreparably harmed in the form of insolvency, bankruptcy, the
potential foreclosure of Sparks’ home, and the termination of forty-five employees. Beyond
Defendants’ (incomplete) showing and arguments, the court believes this case presents important
questions that would benefit from appellate review.
The court is nevertheless cognizant of the impact a stay may have on UPHE and the
importance of UPHE securing its judgment during the appeal. Indeed, given Defendants’
represented financial situation, the court is concerned about Defendants’ ability to satisfy the
judgment if they are unable to continue running their businesses. Thus, although the court makes
a preliminary finding on an emergency basis – without the benefit of a response from UPHE –
that Defendants are unable to post a bond for the full judgment, “this finding does not require the
[c]ourt to stay enforcement of the judgment without requiring the [D]efendants to post some type
of bond while the case is on appeal.”37 Accordingly, the court finds that a bond for less than the
full judgment appears warranted in this case and conditionally grants Defendants’ Emergency
Motion as outlined below.
35
Miami Int’l Realty, 807 F.2d at 873 (citation omitted).
36
Am. Bank & Tr., 2007 WL 1187997, at *3 (citation omitted).
37
Id.
5
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5784 Page 6 of 7
CONCLUSION
The court GRANTS Defendants’ Emergency Motion38 and stays UPHE’s collection
efforts39 pending resolution of the appeal on the following three conditions:
1. Defendants must provide an initial payment to the court as follows: (1) $50,000 from
DPG; and (2) $10,000 from Hoskins. DPG and Hoskins shall make their payments to the court
no later than seven (7) days from the entry of this Order;
2. Defendants must provide additional payments to the court each month, beginning in
September 2020, until the appeal is resolved in the following amounts: (1) $7,500 from DPG; (2)
$1,000 from Sparks; (3) $1,000 from Stuart; and (4) $750 from Hoskins. Each Defendant shall
make its respective monthly payment on or before the fifth day of each month; and
3. Sparks and Stuart shall not take distributions beyond their ordinary and reasonable
salaries from DieselSellerz.com, LLC, B&W, and DPG.
The stay will not become effective until the court receives Defendants’ initial payment of
$60,000 as ordered in Condition No. 1. If any Defendant violates Condition No. 2 or Condition
No. 3, the court will upon notice from a party automatically and immediately lift the stay.
Lastly, as UPHE receives its supplemental discovery, it may move the court to modify this Order
as it believes appropriate in view of the information obtained – including the possibility of a
request that Defendants be required to post a supersedeas bond in the full amount. Evidence that
Defendants have engaged in efforts to conceal or dissipate assets, or otherwise interfere with
Plaintiff’s ability to collect on its judgment, would weigh in favor of modifying this preliminary
order.
38
Dkt. 219.
Assuming the conditions in this Order are met, briefing on UPHE’s Application for Charging Order, Dkt. 203,
would be stayed.
39
6
Case 2:17-cv-00032-RJS Document 222 Filed 08/20/20 PageID.5785 Page 7 of 7
SO ORDERED this 20th day of August 2020.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States Chief District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?