Ruiz Fajardo Ingenieros Asociados S.A.S. v. Flow International Corporation, No. 2:2016cv01902 - Document 108 (W.D. Wash. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER denying Defendant's 98 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)

Download PDF
d instruction was not supported by any Washington authority holding that a 3 warranty like the one at issue in this case necessarily excludes defects in design. Flow 4 cites two product liability cases, and neither originate from Washington or apply to 5 Washington law. Dkt. # 98 at 15. The Court does not believe it erred by not including 6 such a statement that was not supported by citations to appropriate Washington authoirty. 7 Moreover, as Ruiz Fajardo notes, Flow has not provided the Court with Washington 8 authority holding that software defects are necessarily defects in design, and Flow 9 proposed no such instruction. Dkt. # 50. Even if the Court included Flow’s proposed 10 instruction, it is not clear the outcome would change. 11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Flow’s Motion for a New Trial. 12 C. 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) provides an automatic stay of thirty (30) Motion for Extension of Stay 14 days following judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). Rule 62(b) provides, in relevant part, 15 that “[a]t any time after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a 16 bond or other security. . . . The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or 17 other security and remains in effect for the time specified in the bond or other security.” 1 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Flow requests that the execution of the $437,830 judgment be stayed pending 19 20 resolution of all post-trial motions, and for the Court to do so without requiring Flow to 21 post any bond or security. Dkt. # 98 at 16. The Court will reject this request for two 22 reasons. First, because the Court is denying Flow’s post-trial Motions under Rules 50 23 and 59, there is no potential in the short term that the judgment is altered, amended, or 24 reversed, as the only remaining post-trial motions are Ruiz Fajardo’s Motion for 25 1 Flow’s Reply appears to quote language from Washington State’s Rule 62(b), or a previous version of Federal Rule 62(b), not the current Federal Rule 62(b). Dkt. # 105 at 6. The Court 27 applies the current Federal Rule 62(b) here. 26 ORDER- 7 1 Attorney’s Fees and Motion for Bill of Costs. Dkt. ## 84, 89. The Court continues to 2 consider these motions, and will rule on them shortly. Second, even if this Court were 3 inclined to grant a stay for the limited time remaining before it rules on the outstanding 4 motions, Flow has failed to provide a compelling reason why it should be allowed such a 5 stay without security. While Rule 62(b)’s newly-amended language provides for 6 “security” in forms other than a bond, Flow is offering no such alternative security. 7 Without such a security, Flow has failed to show that it is entitled to a stay of execution 8 of the judgment. See Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 359 n.8 (1996) (“The district 9 court may only stay execution of the judgment pending the disposition of certain post10 trial motions or appeal if the court provides for the security of the judgment creditor.”). 11 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Flow’s Motion for an Extension of Stay. 12 III. CONCLUSION 13 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Flow’s Motion. Dkt. # 98. 14 Dated this 24th day of June, 2019. 15 16 18 A 19 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDER- 8

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.