Fleetwood Services, LLC v. Ram Capital Funding, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-05120
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fleetwood Services v. Ram Capital, Judge Liman conditioned a judgment-enforcement stay on a full bond and declined to pause Fleetwood’s fee motion.
Fleetwood Services, LLC; defendants Robert Giardina and Richmond Capital Group, LLC; and the pending judgment and attorney-fee motion.
What happened
In Fleetwood Services, LLC v. Ram Capital Funding, LLC, defendants Robert Giardina and Richmond Capital Group, LLC asked the court to pause enforcement of a $175,351 judgment while Giardina’s appeal proceeded. They also asked the court to pause Fleetwood’s request for attorney’s fees.
The court ordered that enforcement of the judgment would be paused only if the defendants posted a bond acceptable to the court covering the full $175,351 judgment, plus interest and appeal costs. The court found that the defendants had not shown a sufficient reason for requiring a smaller bond. The court also said it would not pause its decision on Fleetwood’s attorney-fee request.
Judge Liman entered the order on September 29, 2022, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the identified docket entry.
The detailed version
- Fleetwood Services, LLC v. Ram Capital Funding, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-05120
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
Defendants Robert Giardina and Richmond Capital Group, LLC moved to stay, or pause, two matters while an appeal was pending: enforcement of the court’s $175,351 judgment entered on August 18, 2022, and consideration of Fleetwood Services, LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees. Giardina had filed a notice of appeal. The judgment was entered against Giardina on Count Five of Fleetwood’s complaint; Counts One through Four had been dismissed with prejudice.
The defendants offered no support for the requested stay beyond stating that appellate counsel had identified four justiciable issues. They also did not file a response to Fleetwood’s opposition by the applicable deadline.
Court’s ruling
The court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b), which allows a party to obtain a stay after judgment by providing a bond or other security. The court ordered that enforcement of the judgment would be stayed upon the posting of a supersedeas bond acceptable to the court. The bond had to cover the full $175,351 judgment, plus interest and costs on appeal.
The court stated that the defendants had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to support a lower bond. It declined to hold its decision on Fleetwood’s attorney-fee motion in abeyance. The Clerk of Court was respectfully directed to close Docket No. 115.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.