United States v. Kelly

District Court, E.D. Michigan·Decided October 23, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-12570·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 21-12570 v. Hon. Gershwin A. Drain

JAMES J. KELLY, JR.,

Defendant.

___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY AND FOR WAIVER [#66], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO REPATRIATE FUNDS [#69] AND ORDERING THE CLERK TO ISSUE ATTACHED NOTICE BY SIGNING IT AND AFFIXING THE COURT SEAL IN THE SAME MANNER AS WITH A SUMMONS AND CANCELLING OCTOBER 25, 2023 HEARING

I. INTRODUCTION On May 2, 2023, this Court entered judgment in favor of the Plaintiff United States and against Defendant James J. Kelly on Count I of the Amended Complaint in the amount of $929,904.94, plus statutory additions from and after October 26, 2022. On May 30, 2023, Defendant Kelly filed a Notice of Appeal. Now before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Stay Execution of the Judgment and Waiver of Bond, filed on May 31, 2023. Plaintiff filed a Response opposing Defendant’s Motion for Stay and Waiver on June 14, 2023. Defendant failed to file a Reply in support of his motion and the time for doing so has

expired. Additionally, before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Repatriate Foreign Assets, filed on July 10, 2023. Defendant filed a Response opposing the Government’s Motion on July 31, 2023, and the Government filed a

Reply in support of its motion on August 7, 2023. Upon review of the parties’ filings and the relevant authority, the Court concludes that oral argument will not aid in the disposition of these matters. Accordingly, the Court will resolve the pending motions on the briefs and will

cancel the hearing. See E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2). For the reasons that follow, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s Motion for Stay and Waiver of Bond, and grants Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Repatriate Foreign Assets.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The factual background of this matter has been described in this Court’s May 2, 2023 Amended Opinion and Order Granting the Plaintiff United States’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendant Kelly’s Motion for

Summary Judgment. See ECF No. 60. The gist of the matter involves Defendant James J. Kelly’s willful failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (hereinafter “FBAR”) for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 as required by

31 U.S.C. § 5314. Specifically, the Court’s May 2, 2023 Opinion and Order concluded that Defendant Kelly’s actual knowledge of the FBAR reporting requirement coupled with his pattern of deceitful conduct demonstrated that his

failure to timely file his 2013 FBAR, and his failure to file the 2014 and 2015 FBARs was knowing and intentional, and thus willful. Additionally, finding no just reason for delay, the Court entered judgment in the amount of $929,904.94 for

Defendant’s willful violation of his reporting obligations under Section 5314. III. LAW & ANALYSIS A. Defendant’s Motion for Stay and Waiver of Bond 1. Standard of Review

Under Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a litigant may obtain a stay of execution of a judgment pending appeal “by providing a bond or other security.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). When a supersedeas bond is posted and

approved by the court, a stay of monetary judgment issues as a matter of right. Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003). But “[u]nder appropriate circumstances, courts may exercise their discretion to dispense with the bond requirement when granting a stay of a monetary

judgment.” Gould Elecs. Inc. v. Livingston Cnty. Rd. Comm’n, No. 17-11130, 2021 WL 1526277, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 19, 2021). While there is a presumption that a supersedeas bond is “almost always” required, the Arban court held that waiver

of the bond requirement is appropriate where the court is confident that the judgment debtor has adequate financial resources to satisfy the judgment. Arban, 345 F.3d at 409. While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has not set forth a

specific test guiding the analysis of whether an unsecured stay is appropriate, courts in this district have found that waiver is warranted “[w]here the defendant’s ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of the bond would be a waste of

money;” or “[w]here the requirement would put the defendant’s other creditors in undue jeopardy.” Hamlin v. Charter Twp. of Flint, 181 F.R.D. 348, 351 (E.D. Mich. 1998) (quoting Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. W. Union Telegraph Co., 786 F.2d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 1986)). “The party seeking a waiver of the bond

requirement bears the burden of demonstrating that the judgment is not at risk.” Gould, 2021 WL 1526277, at *2 (citing Hamlin, 181 F.R.D. at 353). 2. Waiver of the Bond Requirement

In support of his request to stay enforcement of the judgment pending his appeal, Defendant Kelly argues that the requirement of a supersedeas bond should be waived. He asserts the existing Stipulated Preliminary Injunction requiring that he maintain a sum certain in his foreign bank account (“Sora Account”), located in

Liechtenstein, provides sufficient security for the Government. The Government counters that the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction does not protect the Government’s ability to collect the judgment because the bank is in

the process of a voluntary liquidation, and Defendant Kelly does not earn sufficient income to satisfy the judgment. Moreover, the Government points to the fact the FBAR judgment continues to accrue post-judgment interest and penalties at a rate

such that the Government is no longer protected by the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction as of July 2023. Notwithstanding the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction, Defendant Kelly has

not met his burden establishing his ability to satisfy the judgment. “[C]ourts have generally required the appellant to present ‘a financially secure plan for maintaining that same degree of solvency during the period of appeal.’” Hamlin, 181 F.R.D. at 353 (quoting Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey

Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1190 (5th Cir. 1979)). See Contract Design Group, Inc. v. Wayne State Univ., No. 10-cv-14702, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148859, at *2- 3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2014)(noting that the defendant university presented

evidence that it had over $183 million in unrestricted funds available to satisfy the judgment and would “be able to maintain the same degree of solvency during the period of appeal.”), Arban, 345 F.3d at 409 (affirming district court’s waiver of a supersedeas bond given the “vast disparity” between the $225,000 judgment and

the appellant’s revenues of nearly $2.5 billion). As of July 31, 2023, the balance of the judgment already totals more than $979,264.10, with additional post-judgment interest and penalties accruing daily.

The Stipulated Preliminary Injunction requires Defendant to maintain $975,631.08 in his offshore account. Thus, at this juncture, the Government is already undersecured and will be severely undersecured by the end of this year.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Kelly, (E.D. Mich. 2023).

United States v. Kelly (United States v. Kelly) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related