Hurt, et al v. Commerce Energy, Inc., et al, No. 1:2012cv00758 - Document 966 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 11/5/18. The Court, for the reasons set forth in this order, grants defendants' motion to stay, so long as they provide a supersedeas bond for $5,250,000.00. (Related Doc. 961 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hurt, et al v. Commerce Energy, Inc., et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO -----------------------------------------------------------------: DAVINA HURT, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : vs. : : COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., et al., : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------ Doc. 966 Case No. 1:12-cv-758 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 961] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Interminable: an adjective meaning having or seeming to have no end. Also, this case. After a jury found Defendants liable, the Court ordered them to pay Plaintiffs roughly $4.8 m“ll“on “n damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.1 On October 11, 2018, Defendants moved to stay the enforcement of that judgment pending appeal and offered a $4.9 million supersedeas bond in support.2 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the Court to grant Defendants’ stay if they provide a satisfactory supersedeas bond. 3 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ bond is deficient as it does not cover: (i) anticipated post-judgment interest, (ii) anticipated appellate attorneys’ fees, and (iii) certain pre-judgment attorneys’ fees.4 Thus, they ask Defendants to increase the bond by $425,477.5 Doc. 960 (ordering Defendants to pay $1,889,156.12 in damages, $2,718,440.75 “n attorneys’ fees, and $217,120.16 in costs). 2 Doc. 961. Plaintiffs oppose. Doc. 962. Defendants reply. Doc. 964. Defendants’ notice of appeal. Doc. 963. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d); Arban v. W. Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003). 4 Doc. 962 at 2–3. 1 5 Id. Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:12-cv-758 Gwin, J. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo during an appeal. This purpose would be frustrated if the bond failed to account for the delay to Pla“nt“ffs’ rel“ef or the additional litigation efforts needed to secure that relief. As such, the bond should include anticipated appellate attorneys’ fees and post”udgment “nterest to protect Pla“nt“ffs’ current pos“t“on.6 And, for similar reasons, the bond should include the requested pre-judgment attorneys’ fees, which Plaintiffs incurred after they moved for attorneys’ fees, but before judgment. Defendants do not seriously dispute Pla“nt“ffs’ calculat“ons and the Court bel“eves they are reasonable. Thus, Defendants’ supersedeas bond should be in the amount of $5,250,000.00. Plaintiffs also argue that all three Defendants, rather than just Commerce Energy, Inc., must be named in the bond.7 The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a supersedeas bond that names only one Defendant is insufficiently secure. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ mot“on to stay, so long as they provide a supersedeas bond for $5,250,000.00 IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Dated: November 5, 2018 James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 Jack Henry & Assoc., Inc. v. BSC, Inc. , 753 F. Supp. 2d 665, 673–74 (E.D. Ky. 2010), aff’d, 487 F. App’x 246 (6th Cir. 2012). See United States ex rel. Lefan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 397 F. App’x 144, 151 (6th C“r. 2010); 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2905 (3d ed. 1998). 7 Doc. 962 at 3. -2-
]]>
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.
