Jordan v. Wonderful Citrus Packing LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JAMES K. JORDAN, CASE NO. 1:18-cv-00401-AWI-SAB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT 10 v. WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING LLC’S MOTION TO STAY JUDGMENT 11 WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING LLC, PENDING APPEAL AND FOR a California limited liability company, APPROVAL OF BOND 12 Defendants. 13 (Doc. No. 221) 14 15 Before the Court is a motion filed by Defendant Wonderful Citrus Packing LLC seeking to 16 stay an adverse judgment pending appeal. For the reasons that follow, the Court will reserve its 17 ruling on the motion and direct Wonderful Citrus to submit an amended proposed supersedeas 18 bond that complies with this order. 19 20 BACKGROUND 21 This case arises from Plaintiff James K. Jordan’s defamation claim against Wonderful 22 Citrus, his former employer. A jury found in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $4,941,071. After 23 its post-trial motions were denied, Wonderful Citrus filed a timely notice of appeal. Now, 24 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 25 151, Wonderful Citrus moves the Court to stay the judgment and approve its proposed supersedeas 26 bond. Plaintiff has not submitted any opposition to these requests. 27 28 1 DISCUSSION 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) states in full: 3 At any time after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or 4 other security and remains in effect for the time specified in the bond or other security. 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b); see also N.L.R.B. v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988) 6 (explaining that a supersedeas bond is meant to protect against the risk of a later uncollectible 7 judgment and compensate for delay in the enforcement of the judgment). Where a party has 8 posted a bond acceptable to the court, the party is entitled to a stay “as a matter of right” under 9 Rule 62. Matter of Combined Metals Reduction, Inc. 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977).1 10 While Rule 62(b) is silent on the required amount or form of any supersedeas bond, these 11 specifics are addressed by Local Rule 151. See L.R. 151(a); see also Rachel v. Banana Republic, 12 Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987) (“District courts have inherent discretionary 13 authority in setting supersedeas bonds[.]”). In particular, Local Rule 151(d) provides that “[w]hen 14 required, a supersedeas bond shall be 125 percent of the amount of the judgment unless the Court 15 otherwise orders.” L.R. 151(d). The form of a bond is governed by Local Rule 151(e), which 16 states that it “shall be given, signed and acknowledged by the party offering it and by that party’s 17 surety,” and that every bond “shall state the conditions of the obligation and shall contain a 18 provision expressly subjecting it to all applicable federal law.” L.R. 151(e). Where a corporate 19 surety is used, Local Rule 151(f) provides that no bond shall be accepted “unless the corporate 20 surety is in compliance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. §§ 9304−06” and the party offering the 21 bond has presented “a duly authenticated power of attorney appointing the agents or officers 22 executing such obligation to act on behalf of the corporate surety.” L.R. 151(f). 23 With its motion, Wonderful Citrus attached a proposed supersedeas bond in the amount of 24 $6,215,728.17, which is 125% of the $4,941,071 verdict and the $31,511.54 award of costs. Doc. 25 26 1 Recent amendments to Rule 62 moved the provision regarding stays obtained with supersedeas bonds from 27 subdivision (d) to subdivision (b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 advisory committee’s note to 2018 amendment; see also 11 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2905 (3d ed.) (addressing 2018 amendments 28 to Rule 62). While noticeable when comparing this case to the pre-2018 decisions cited in this order, this 1 221-2. The bond has been given, signed, and acknowledged by both Wonderful Citrus and its 2 |corporate surety, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. Through the documentation 3 | provided, Wonderful Citrus has established that its surety complies with 31 U.S.C. §§ 9304-06, 4 | and presented a power of attorney that complies with Local Rule 151(f). The bond states the 5 |conditions of the obligation, including its duration (i.e., effective until Wonderful Citrus pays any 6 | part of the underlying judgment based on a determination of any appeal or otherwise). Yet, the 7 |bond does not include “a provision expressly subjecting [the bond] to all applicable federal law.” 8 | Without this, the bond does not satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 151(e), and the Court 9 |cannot find it acceptable for purposes of a stay under Rule 62(b). See Vahora v. Valley 10 | Diagnostics Lab., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01624-SKO, 2019 WL 5960204, at *2—3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 11 |2019) (rejecting a proposed bond that did not meet the requirements of Local Rule 151(e)). 12 At this stage, the Court will reserve its ruling on Wonderful Citrus’s motion, and grant 13 | Wonderful Citrus leave to file an amended proposed bond that complies with this order. If an 14 amended proposed bond is timely filed, the Court will enter a separate order approving or rejecting 15 |the bond. 16 17 ORDER 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. By December 21, 2020, Wonderful Citrus shall file either: 20 a. An amended proposed bond that complies with this order; or 21 b. A statement showing good cause why it is unable to do so. 22 2. Plaintiff shall not execute on the judgment or initiate proceedings to enforce it, 23 unless the Court orders otherwise. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: _ December 15, 2020 : : — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28