Trautt v. Keystone RV Company

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 10 AT SEATTLE

11 JOSEPH P. TRAUTT, Jr. 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-00342-RAJ 13 v. ORDER 14 KEYSTONE RV COMPANY, an Indiana 15 corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Keystone RV Company’s 20 (“Defendant”) Motion for Stay on Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal. Dkt. # 97. 21 Defendant seeks to post a supersedeas bond in the full amount of the judgment of 22 $1,590,303.451 to obtain the stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 62(b). Id. 23 Plaintiff Joseph P. Trautt, Jr. (“Trautt” or “Plaintiff”) does not object to staying 24 enforcement of the judgment while Defendant’s appeal is pending as long as Defendant 25

26 1 This amount reflects an updated request by Defendant, see Dkt. # 103, which includes the full judgment amount plus $4,121.45 in costs, as awarded by the Clerk on October 6, 27 2021, Dkt. # 102. 1 posts a supersedeas bond approved by the Court in the amount of $1,982,727.50, or 125% 2 of the judgment. Dkt. # 101. Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and relevant law, the 3 Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion. 4 II. BACKGROUND 5 On August 11, 2021, the Court entered Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law 6 following a bench trial on a products liability claim under Washington’s Product Liability 7 Act. Dkt. # 91. The Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff and found Plaintiff entitled to 8 damages in the amount of $1,586,182. Id. at 17. On September 10, 2021, Defendant 9 timely filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of 10 the Court’s ruling. Dkt. # 95. Defendant arranged for Insurance Office of America to 11 post a supersedeas bond in the full amount of the judgment, $1,586,182, upon 12 confirmation from the Court that the security is sufficient to support the stay. Dkt. ## 97 13 at 1; 98 ¶ 5. 14 Defendant filed the instant motion seeking the Court’s approval of the security to 15 obtain a stay on enforcement of the judgment. Dkt. # 97. In his response, Plaintiff 16 indicated that although he does not object to a supersedeas bond, he requests that the 17 Court require that the bond be 125% of the judgment for a total of $1,982,727.50. Dkt. 18 # 101 at 1. Plaintiff argues that additional amount is necessary to account for interest, 19 costs, and damage from delay. Id. Defendant, in its reply, proposes an upward 20 adjustment of the supersedeas bond to reflect the costs approved by the Court in the 21 amount of $4,121.45, and proposes that if the Court determines that post-judgment 22 interest is appropriate, it should be calculated at a rate 10% for one year, adding 23 $159,030.50 to the judgment. Dkt. # 103 at 2 n.1 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, “[at] any time after judgment is 26 entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. The stay takes 27 effect with the court approves the bond . . . and remains in effect for the time specified in 1 the bond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to protect 2 appellees from a loss resulting from the stay. Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 3 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987). “The posting of a bond protects the prevailing plaintiff 4 from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates him for delay in the entry 5 of the final judgment.” N.L.R.B. v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988). District 6 courts have “inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds.” Cotton ex 7 rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1027 (N.D. Cal. 2012) 8 (quoting 831 F.2d at 1505). 9 The predecessor to Rule 62(d), originally Civil Rule 73(d), had instructed “the 10 amount of the bond be computed by the district court to include ‘the whole amount of the 11 judgment remaining unsatisfied, costs on the appeal, interest, and damages for 12 delay . . .’” Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 13 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979). Although Rule 62(d) does not precisely define the amount 14 and conditions of a supersedeas bond, “it has been read consistently with the earlier rule.” 15 Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 16 2012) (quoting 600 F.2d at 1191). 17 Courts, exercising their discretion, have found bonds equal to 125% and up to 18 150% of the judgment to be sufficient to protect plaintiff’s interest, damages from delay, 19 and costs pending appeal. See Wishtoyo Found. v. United Water Conservation Dist., No. 20 CV 16-3869-DOC-PLA, 2019 WL 8226058, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2019) (holding 21 that “[i]n light of the amount of time an appeal could take and the effort an appeal will 22 involve . . . the Court increases the amount of the supersedeas bond, requiring that 23 Defendant post a bond of 150% of the attorney fee and cost award, rather than 125% of 24 the award”); Clark v. Hidden Valley Lake Ass’n, No. 16-CV-02009-SI, 2018 WL 25 2412136, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2018) (holding that “a supersedeas bond equal to 26 125% of the judgment will be adequate to protect plaintiffs’ interests pending appeal”); 27 Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 1 2012) (requiring defendants to file a supersedeas bond equal to 125% of plaintiffs’ 2 $4,575,000 award). 3 The Court here similarly finds that a supersedeas bond equal to 125% of the 4 judgment is sufficient to address interest, costs, and damage from delay pending appeal, 5 to mitigate the deprivation of the immediate benefits of Plaintiff’s judgment. See Fed. 6 Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1980) 7 (holding that “the stay operates for the appellant’s benefit and deprives the appellee of the 8 immediate benefits of his judgment”). The Court thus confirms that a supersedeas bond 9 in the amount of $1,982,727.50 is sufficient to support the stay. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Stay on Enforcement of 12 Judgment Pending Appeal is GRANTED in part. Dkt. # 97. Judgment shall be stayed 13 upon Defendant’s submission of proof to the Court that the bond has been posted in the 14 amount of $1,982,727.50. 15 16 DATED this 19th day of October, 2021. 17 A 18

19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27