Ema Financial, LLC v. Joey New York, Inc.

Background

The court received Defendant Joey Chancis’s motion to cancel subpoenas issued by Plaintiff Ema Financial, LLC. The subpoenas sought personal financial records and restraining notices concerning accounts held by Chancis and Defendant Richard Roer. According to Chancis, EMA issued them to collect on the February 2, 2022 judgment. EMA opposed the motion.

The court expressly stated that this order did not rule on the pending motion to cancel the subpoenas. The court also stated that the order applied only to Chancis because she is not a licensed attorney and could not represent Roer, and because she lacked standing to move on his behalf. The court gave Roer the option to join the motion by filing a signed declaration by June 30, 2022.

Individual Liability

The court clarified the effect of its February 1, 2022 Opinion and Order and the resulting judgment. In that earlier ruling, the court granted judgment for EMA against the individual defendants on breach of contract, breach of guaranty, and constructive fraudulent conveyance. It denied judgment on fraudulent inducement, actual fraudulent conveyance, and permission to pierce the corporate veil.

The court stated that, because the judgment incorporated the reasoning of the earlier Opinion and Order, the judgment held Chancis and Roer individually liable for the claims on which judgment was granted.

Stay Pending Appeal

The court discussed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), which allows an appellant to obtain a stay of a judgment during an appeal by posting a supersedeas bond. A supersedeas bond is security intended to ensure that the winning party can collect if the judgment is affirmed while protecting the appellant if the judgment is reversed. The court explained that it may waive the bond requirement when the appellant provides another acceptable way to secure the judgment.

The court noted that Chancis and Roer had not posted a supersedeas bond. They also had not provided information showing that Richard Chancis’s promised indemnification would be an acceptable alternative way to secure the judgment. During the bench trial, Chancis and Richard Chancis had testified that Richard Chancis would indemnify Chancis and Roer if they became individually liable. After entry of judgment, however, they had not provided additional information about that indemnification or its relationship to a supersedeas bond.

Order

The court ordered Chancis and Roer to submit a joint letter of no more than six pages by July 8, 2022. The letter had to address the status of any planned indemnification by Richard Chancis and provide information supporting an argument that the indemnification could secure the judgment. If relevant, the letter could also explain why the court should waive the supersedeas-bond requirement to begin a stay of the judgment. The order did not grant or deny the motion to cancel the subpoenas.