V.I.P. Mortgage Incorporated v. Gates

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: February 5, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02865
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 V.I.P. Mortgage Incorporated, No. CV-24-02865-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Jennifer Gates,

13 Defendant. 14 15 In July 2024, an arbitrator ordered V.I.P. Mortgage, Inc. (“VIP”) to pay $650,805.41 16 to Jennifer Gates (“Gates”). (Doc. 1-2.) VIP then initiated this action to vacate the 17 arbitrator’s award and Gates filed a motion to confirm the award. (Docs. 1, 6.) On 18 November 14, 2024, the Court issued an order granting Gates’s confirmation motion and 19 denying VIP’s vacatur request. (Doc. 12.) That same day, the Clerk entered judgment in 20 Gates’s favor. (Doc. 13.) Later, on December 30, 2024, the Court issued an order awarding 21 Gates an additional $11,613.73 in attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 20.) VIP has filed a notice of 22 appeal from the judgment (Doc. 17) but not from the fee award. 23 Now pending before the Court is VIP’s motion to stay execution pending appeal 24 and request for approval of bond. (Doc. 21.) In support, VIP has provided a copy of a 25 supersedeas bond it obtained from a surety, Merchants Bonding Company, in the amount 26 of $813,431.76. (Id. at 6.) VIP contends this bond should be deemed sufficient under Rule 27 62(b) because it “is enough to cover the full judgment owed to Gates pursuant to the 28 Arbitration Award and this Court’s Attorneys’ Fees Award . . . including accounting for 1 potential respective interest.” (Id. at 2.) In response, Gates states as follows: “Gates agrees, 2 subject to the approval of the Court, and the actual posting of the bond, that a supersedeas 3 bond in the amount of $813,431.76 shall be sufficient security for a stay of enforcement of 4 and/or execution on the judgment pending appeal by VIP.” (Doc. 22 at 1.) In reply, VIP 5 states: “To clarify, [VIP] has already obtained the appeal bond in the amount of 6 $813,431.76, attached as Exhibit A to its Motion to Stay. Indeed, Gates recognizes in her 7 Response, the bond amount is sufficient. As such, [VIP] respectfully request the Court 8 grant the stay, approve the Bond, and direct [VIP] to post the Bond by filing the same with 9 this Clerk of this Court.” (Doc. 23 at 1.) 10 VIP’s request is governed by Rule 62(b), which provides that “[a]t any time after 11 judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. The 12 stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or other security and remains in effect 13 for the time specified in the bond or other security.” This rule “entitles a party who files a 14 satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay of money judgment as a matter of right.” Arban v. 15 West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003). Although Rule 62(b) “is silent as to 16 the required amount of a supersedeas bond,” its predecessor “had directed that the amount 17 of the bond be computed by the district court to include the whole amount of the judgment 18 remaining unsatisfied, costs on the appeal, interest, and damages for delay, unless the court 19 after notice and hearing and for good cause shown fixes a different amount or orders 20 security other than the bond” and Rule 62(b) “has been read consistently with the earlier 21 rule.” Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1029 (N.D. 22 Cal. 2012) (cleaned up). Thus, “[a]lthough practices vary among judges, a bond of 1.25 to 23 1.5 times the judgment is typically required.” Id. 24 Here, the proffered bond is about 1.25 times the size of the underlying judgment, 25 which is ordinarily sufficient, and Gates does not dispute the size or sufficiency of the 26 bond. Accordingly, the Court approves the bond and orders that the stay will take effect 27 upon VIP’s posting of the bond with the Clerk of Court. Finally, the Court also clarifies 28 that the stay of execution applies both to the judgment entered on November 14, 2024 (Doc. 13) and the fee award issued on December 30, 2024 (Doc. 20). Although VIP did not file 2|| a notice of appeal from the fee award,! the validity of that award may be contingent on || what happens during VIP’s appeal. At any rate, VIP’s stay request encompasses both the 4|| judgment and the fee award (Doc. 21 at 2) and Gates did not oppose the scope of the stay request. United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371, 375-76 (2020). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that: 8 1. VIP’s motion (Doc. 21) is granted. 9 2. Upon VIP’s posting of the supersedeas bond (Doc. 21 at 6) with the Clerk of 10 || Court, execution on the judgment (Doc. 13) and fee award (Doc. 20) shall be stayed 11 |} pending VIP’s appeal of the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. The stay shall remain in effect until the Ninth Circuit’s mandate issues. 13 Dated this 5th day of February, 2025. 14 15 Lm ee” 16 f t _o——— Dominic W. Lanza 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ! Culinary & Serv. Employees Union, Local 555 v. Hawaii Employee Benefit Admin., 688 F.2d 1228, 1232 (9th Cir. 1982) (“Where no notice of appeal from a post-judgment 28 oie ne attorneys’ fees is filed, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the

-3-