Berberena-Garcia v. Aviles et al, No. 3:2006cv01907 - Document 180 (D.P.R. 2009)
Court Description: ***SET ASIDE AS PER DKT.192 ORDER***OPINION AND ORDER. Partially GRANTED 176 MOTION Regarding Attorney's Fees, Potential Stay Pending Appeal, and Bill of Costs filed by Jason Berberena-Garcia; DENIED without prejudice 178 MOTION to Stay Enfo rcement of Judgment. Plaintiff's request that this Court consider the pending motion for attorney's fees is HELD in abeyance pending Defendants' posting of bond. Pursuant to Plaintiff's request, the Bill of Costs at Docket # 160 i s STRICKEN from the record, and shall be re-filed at the conclusion of the appeal. Defendants' Supersedeas bond due by 7/24/2009. Signed by Judge Salvador E Casellas on 7/7/2009.(LB) Modified on 8/12/2009 (ab).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Berberena-Garcia v. Aviles et al Doc. 180 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 JASON BERBERENA-GARCIA 4 Plaintiff 5 v. 6 EDWIN AVILES, et al 7 Civil No. 06-1907 (SEC) Defendants 8 9 OPINION and ORDER 10 Pursuant to Plaintiff’s filing of Defendants’ offer of judgment, and its acceptance of the 11 same at Docket # 140, this Court entered judgment for $50,000, plus costs accrued. Docket # 12 155. Upon this Court’s denial of their motion for reconsideration, on June 10, 2009, Defendants 13 filed a notice of appeal. Docket # 175. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting 14 attorney’s fees and expenses, as well as the bill of costs (Dockets ## 157 & 160), and 15 Defendants filed their opposition (Dockets # 169 & 172). In their opposition, Defendants 16 request that Plaintiff’s motion requesting attorney’s fees, and bill of costs be stayed. Docket # 17 172. Finally, Defendants filed a “Motion Requesting Stay of Enforcement of Judgment Pending 18 Appeal and Waiver of Supersedeas Bond.” Docket # 178. Defendants request that, pending the 19 appeal, this Court grant an unsecured stay of the execution of judgment. Docket # 178. In 20 support of said request, Defendants rely on their plain capacity to pay the judgment. Plaintiffs 21 oppose, arguing that Defendants’ filing of an appeal without posting a supersedeas bond does 22 not relieve Defendants from their obligation to comply with this Court’s Judgment. 23 Pursuant to F ED. R C IV. P. 62(d), a party appealing a monetary judgment may request a 24 stay to enforce the district court’s judgment, upon the posting of a supersedeas bond. This 25 district has noted that “the underlying purpose of the bond is to ‘protect the interest of the 26 judgment creditor whose execution is pending the outcome of the appeal.’” Perez Rodriguez v. Dockets.Justia.com 1 CIVIL NO. 06-1907 (SEC) Page 2 2 Rey Hernandez, 304 F. Supp. 2d 227, 228 (D.P.R. 2004) (citing Rivera Perez v. Massachusetts 3 General Hospital, 193 F.R.D. 43, 44 (D.P.R. 2000)). Therefore, the prevailing plaintiff is 4 protected “from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates him for the delay in 5 the entry of final judgment.” Id. (internal citations omitted.) Notwithstanding, courts have held 6 that there is no bond requirement if: “(1) the defendant’s ability to pay is so plain that the 7 posting of a bond would be a waste of money; or (2) the bond would put the defendant’s other 8 creditors in undue jeopardy.” Id. at 228-229 (citing Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 296 F.3d 9 13, 17 (1st Cir. 2002). The First Circuit has held that “the issuance of a stay depends on 10 ‘whether the harm caused [movant] without the [stay], in light of the [movant’s] likelihood of 11 eventual success on the merits, outweighs the harm the [stay] will cause [the non-moving 12 party].” Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 296 F.3d at 16-17 (citing United Steelworkers of 13 America v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 7 (1st Cir. 1987) (internal quotations omitted). 14 After reviewing the pleadings, this Court concludes that Defendants’ assertions of their 15 ability to pay are insufficient to bypass the requirement of a bond, in order to stay the execution 16 of judgment. Specifically, Defendants have not provided adequate documentation supporting 17 their capacity to satisfy this Court’s judgment. As a result, this Court cannot make such a 18 determination. See Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 296 F.3d at 17. Notwithstanding, this 19 Court finds that a bond in the full amount of Defendants’ debt with Plaintiff should not be 20 imposed, insofar as the amount of attorney’s fees and costs are yet to be determined. Moreover, 21 Defendants’ appeal hinges on Plaintiff’s right to claim attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, 22 this Court ORDERS Defendants to post a supersedeas bond for $50,000 1 by July 24, 2009. 23 Once Defendants comply with this order, and the bond is posted, execution of this Court’s 24 25 1 26 There is no controversy as to the fact that the offer of judgment is $50,000. Defendants are only contesting the imposition of attorney’s fees, and costs. 1 CIVIL NO. 06-1907 (SEC) Page 3 2 judgment will automatically be stayed. Defendants are forewarned that upon their failure to post 3 the supersedeas bond within the deadline provided, Plaintiff is entitled to immediately request 4 the execution of this Court’s judgment. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 7 th day of July, 2009. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 S/Salvador E. Casellas Salvador E. Casellas U.S. District Judge
]]>
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.
