United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
PATRICIA A. SETTZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Stay
of Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal [DE 310]. Upon review
of the Motion, Plaintiffs Response [DE 314], Defendants'
Reply [DE 315], and the record, the Court finds that
Defendant U.S. Bank is not entitled to a stay under 12 U.S.C.
§ 91. Nor will the Court exercise its discretion to
grant a stay without requiring U.S. Bank to post bond under
2010, Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court under 11 U.S.C. § 303(i). This Court
withdrew the reference to the Bankruptcy Court and the case
proceeded to trial. [DE 10.] The jury awarded Plaintiff $1.12
million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive
damages. [DE 198.] Final judgment was entered on March 14,
2013. [DE 208.]
April 11, 2013-28 days after final judgment-Defendants filed
a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). [DE 220.]
Plaintiff moved to strike the motion because it was filed
outside the 14-day filing period under the Bankruptcy Rules.
[DE 223.] In response, Defendants filed a motion for an
extension of time to file post-trial motions and notice of
appeal. [DE 231.] The Court denied the motion to strike,
concluding that Defendants timely filed within the Civil
Rules' 28-day filing period, and denied as moot
Defendants' motion for extension of time. [DE 259.] Then,
the Court granted Defendants' JMOL motion and reduced
Plaintiffs award to $360, 000 in compensatory damages. [DEs
272 & 273.]
appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed this Court's order
granting the JMOL motion. The Court of Appeals held that the
Bankruptcy Rules apply to all cases arising under Title 11
and that Defendants' motion was untimely under
Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9015(c). Rosenberg v. DVIReceivables XIV,
LLC, 818 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2016). The Court of
Appeals remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the
$6.12 million jury award. This Court reinstated the jury
verdict on May 5, 2017. [DE 309.] Simultaneously, the Court
denied Defendants' renewed motion for extension of time
to file post-trial motions. [DE 308.]
Bank seeks to confirm that they are entitled to an automatic
stay on the execution of judgment under 12 U.S.C. § 91.
Section 91 bars courts from issuing an attachment or
execution against a national bank prior to final judgment.
The parties agree that "final judgment" for
purposes of Section 91 means a judgment that is no longer
subject to reversal or modification on appeal. See United
States v. Lemaire, 826 F.2d 387, 390 (5th Cir. 1987).
U.S. Bank argues that final judgment has not yet been reached
because the order denying Defendants' renewed motion for
an extension is still on appeal. The Court disagrees. Final
judgment in this case was entered on March 14, 2013.
Defendants did not appeal the judgment within 14 days as
required by Fed.R.Bankr.P. 8002(a). Nor were Defendants
granted an extension on the time to appeal the
judgment. Therefore, the judgment became
"final" for purposes of Section 91 on March 28,
2013. U.S. Bank is not entitled to an automatic stay.
Bank also requests this Court exercise its discretion to
grant a stay without a supersedeas bond. However, the Court
will decline to do so. The purpose of a supersedeas bond is
to preserve the judgment creditor's rights pending
appeal. Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co., Inc. v.
Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir.
1979) ("[A] supersedeas bond is a privilege extended to
the judgment debtor as a price of interdicting the validity
of an order to pay money.").The burden is on the judgment
debtor-U.S. Bank-to objectively demonstrate the reasons for a
departure from the usual requirement of a full security
supersedeas bond. Id. (explaining that a full
security supersedeas bond is the "usual
requirement"). In this case, U.S. Bank provides no
objective reason to waive the bond requirement. Nor does U.S.
Bank offer Plaintiff any form of substitute security.
Instead, U.S. Bank stresses its financial ability to pay the
judgment. However, the bank's ability to pay is not a
sufficient reason on its own to waive the supersedeas bond.
it is ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion for Stay of
Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal and Pending Ruling on
Motion for Mutual Judgment Satisfaction [DE 310] is DENIED.
Defendant's motion for an extension
of time based on excusable neglect was denied as moot. [DE
259]. Moreover, had the Court reached the merits of the
motion, the extension would have been denied under
Advanced Estimating System, Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d
996, 998 (11th Cir. 1997), where the Eleventh Circuit held,
as a matter of law, that an "attorney's