Tractor and Equipment Co. v. Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC et al, No. 2:2015cv05413 - Document 76 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 68 Motion to Stay of Proceedings and approval of a supersedeas bond. IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to approve a supersedeas bond in the amount of $448,801.74 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings to execute the Court's August 22, 2017 judgment are to be stayed upon Anthony Alford's posting with this Court a supersedeas bond in the amount of $695,928.72. Execution of the judgment is hereby STAYED for a period of fifteen days to allow the defendant sufficient time to post a bond in that amount.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 10/4/2017. (jjs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Tractor and Equipment Co. v. Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC et al Doc. 76 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA TRACTOR AND EQUIPMENT CO. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-5413 DUAL TRUCKING AND TRANSPORT, LLC, AND ANTHONY ALFORD SECTION: R ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is defendant’s m otion for a stay of the proceedings and approval of a supersedeas bond. 1 For the following reasons, the m otion is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROU N D This case arises out of an open account agreement between Plaintiff Tractor and Equipm ent Co. and Defendant Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (DTT). 2 DTT applied for credit from plaintiff in March 20 12, and Defendant Anthony Alford executed a personal guarantee of the loan. 3 DTT defaulted on the loan, and plaintiff brought suit in Montana state court to 1 2 3 R. Doc. 68. R. Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 7. R. Doc. 64 at 1-2. Dockets.Justia.com recover the unpaid balance. 4 On March 8, 20 16, the Montana court entered judgm ent in favor of plaintiff against DTT in the am ount of $ 292,846.30 , plus interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from October 31, 20 13, attorneys’ fees in the am ount of $ 30 ,50 8.50 , and costs in the am ount of $ 1,111.55. 5 The Montana court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Alford. 6 On April 3, 20 17, this Court declared that Alford’s personal guarantee is a valid and enforceable surety agreem ent. 7 On August 22, 20 17, the Court granted plaintiff further relief under 28 U.S.C. § 220 2 and issued a judgm ent against Alford in the am ount of the Montana court judgm ent and $ 49,535.10 in attorneys’ fees incurred by plaintiff in enforcing Alford’s guarantee and the Montana judgm ent in Louisiana. 8 Defendants timely appealed the Court’s declaratory judgm ent 9 and its grant of further relief. 10 Defendants now move for a stay of the proceedings pending appeal and approval of a supersedeas bond in the am ount of $ 448,80 1.74. 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Id. at 2. R. Doc. 16-4. R. Doc. 5-4. R. Doc. 47. R. Doc. 64; R. Doc. 65. R. Doc. 49. R. Doc. 66. R. Doc. 68. 2 II. D ISCU SSION Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), a party appealing a m oney judgment is entitled to an autom atic stay of the judgment upon posting a supersedeas bond. See Herbert v. Exxon Corp., 953 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1992). This “stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). Local Rule 62.2 provides that “[a] supersedeas bond staying execution of a m oney judgment m ust be in the am ount of the judgm ent plus 20 % of that am ount to cover interest, costs, and any dam ages award, unless the court directs otherwise.” E.D. La. Civ. R. 62.2. The parties offer differing interpretations of “the am ount of the judgm ent” under Local Rule 62.2. The Court’s August 22, 20 17 judgment awarded plaintiff $ 292,846.30 in principal, plus interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from October 31, 20 13, $ 30 ,50 8.50 in Montana attorneys’ fees, $ 1,111.55 in Montana costs, and $ 49,535.10 in Louisiana attorneys’ fees. 12 Defendants argue that the am ount of the judgm ent should be calculated exclusive of the 18 percent per annum interest, because the 20 percent prem ium required by Local Rule 62.2 is designed to cover interest. 13 Plaintiff contends that the 18 percent interest is part of the judgment. 14 12 13 14 R. Doc. 64; R. Doc. 65. R. Doc. 68-2 at 2. R. Doc. 70 at 2. 3 Defendants m isunderstand the interest requirement in Local Rule 62.2. “The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo while protecting the non-appealing party’s rights pending appeal,” and the Fifth Circuit has therefore instructed that the am ount of the bond should ordinarily include “the whole am ount of the judgment remaining unsatisfied, costs on the appeal, interest, and dam ages for delay.” Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 60 0 F.2d 1189, 1190 -91 (5th Cir. 1979). The 18 percent per annum interest that has accrued since October 31, 20 13 is an integral com ponent of the judgm ent rem aining unsatisfied, and form s part of the current status quo. This accrued interest serves to com pensate plaintiff for defendants’ failure to pay their debts for alm ost four years. The 20 percent prem ium required by Local Rule 62.2 serves to preserve the status quo by covering plaintiff’s future interest, costs on appeal, and dam ages for delay. See id. at 1191 (explaining that the “bond secures the prevailing party against any loss sustained as a result of being forced to forgo execution during the course of an ineffectual appeal”). Defendants further argue that the Court should exercise its discretion to approve a reduced bond. 15 A district court m ay depart from the usual requirement for a full supersedeas bond if the judgm ent debtor objectively 15 R. Doc. 68-2 at 3. 4 dem onstrates a present and future financial ability to satisfy the m oney judgm ent. Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co., 60 0 F.2d at 1191. The court m ay also approve an alternative security arrangement that provides “equal protection to the judgm ent creditor” if posting a full bond would create an undue financial burden. Id. Defendants bear the burden of dem onstrating good cause for a reduced bond. Id.; see also Sundow n Energy , L.P. v. Haller, No. 10 -4354, 20 15 WL 3796351, at *3-4 (E.D. La. 20 15); Nola Spice Designs, LLC v. Hay del Enters., No. 12-2515, 20 13 WL 60 96361, at *1 (E.D. La. 20 13). Here, defendants offer no proof of either a future ability to pay or an undue financial burden. 16 Nor do they propose any alternative security arrangement to protect plaintiff’s interests. Accordingly, the Court declines to approve a reduced bond. Finally, defendants contend that any interest included in the Court’s judgm ent should be calculated at a sim ple interest rate of 1.5 percent per m onth, or 18 percent per annum , on the principal am ount of $ 292,846.30 . 17 Plaintiff m aintains that the interest rate is governed by the term s of the 16 Defendants com plain that it is unfair and inconvenient to be required to post a supersedeas bond in an am ount m uch higher than the principal due on the loan. R. Doc. 68-2 at 3. But defendants agreed to the 18 percent interest rate when they applied for credit. See R. Doc. 68-4. The quantity of interest due is the result of defendants’ choice not to tim ely satisfy their obligations. 17 R. Doc. 68-2 at 4. 5 contract. 18 The credit application states that “[a]ny am ount unpaid after thirty days from the date the debt is incurred shall bear a late paym ent charge of the lesser of 1 1/ 2 % per m onth, which is an annual percentage rate of 18%, or an am ount not to exceed the highest rate perm itted by law.”19 The Court’s judgm ent provides that Alford owes “$ 292,846.30 in principal, plus interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from October 31, 20 13.”20 Plaintiff calculates the accrued interest owed as $ 20 5,939.15. 21 Although plaintiff does not explain the basis of its calculations, this am ount is equivalent to sim ple interest on the principal at a rate of 1.5 percent per m onth, or 18 percent per annum, from October 31, 20 13, to the present. 22 Both parties therefore appear to agree that the loan agreem ent and the Court’s judgm ent provide for sim ple interest at a rate of 18 percent per annum . The Court finds that plaintiff’s interest calculation is correct, and orders defendant to post a supersedeas bond in the am ount of $ 695,928.72 to obtain a stay of execution of judgm ent. 23 18 R. Doc. 70 at 2. R. Doc. 68-4 at 1. 20 R. Doc. 65. 21 R. Doc. 70 at 4. 22 Plaintiff’s proposed interest amount represents simple interest for 3 years and 10 .88 m onths. 23 This reflects 120 percent of the total judgm ent of $ 579,940 .60 (292,846.30 +20 5,939.15+30 ,50 8.50 +1,111.55+49,535.10 = 579,940 .60 ). 6 19 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ m otion to approve a supersedeas bond in the amount of $ 448,80 1.74 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings to execute the Court’s August 22, 20 17 judgment are to be stayed upon Anthony Alford’s posting with this Court a supersedeas bond in the am ount of $ 695,928.72. Execution of the judgm ent is hereby STAYED for a period of fifteen days to allow the defendant sufficient tim e to post a bond in that am ount. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of October, 20 17. 4th _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 7
]]>
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.
