United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge
Hopkins Hospitality Investors, LLC, and Hopkins Investors,
LLC (collectively, the "Hopkins Entities"), move
this Court to approve the proposed Supersedeas Bond (ECF No.
87-1) and the sufficiency of the proposed surety. (Mot., ECF
No. 87.) Defendants have opposed the motion, expressing
concern that the bond only protects one of the two judgments
being appealed by only one set of the judgment debtors.
(Defs.' Resp., ECF No. 106.) They further argue that the
amount of the bond is insufficient because it should include
an allowance for appellate attorneys' fees.
of a brief background, on March 28, 2018, this Court affirmed
an arbitration award and issued Judgment in favor of
Defendants against Star Development Group ("Star")
in the amount of $1, 856, 197.12 (the "Star
Judgment"). (Judgment, ECF No. 35.) Star appealed on
April 24, 2018. (See ECF No. 38.) However, because
there was a pending motion to alter/amend the judgment, the
appeal was stayed until this Court resolved the motion. (ECF
No. 47.) On January 4, 2019, this Court denied the motion to
award attorneys' fees only against Star and awarded
attorneys' fees to Defendants against both Star and the
Hopkins Entities, jointly and severally, in the amount of
$40, 000 (the "Star/Hopkins Judgment"). (ECF No.
49.) After this Court denied the motion to amend, an amended
appeal was filed by Star and the Hopkins Entities
(collectively, the "Judgment Debtors").
(See ECF No. 50.) The instant motion for approval of
the supersedeas bond was filed by the Hopkins Entities on
April 26, 2019. (ECF No. 87.)
party taking an appeal from the District Court is entitled to
a stay of a money judgment as a matter of right if he posts a
bond in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 62 ... ."
American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. American
Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S.Ct. 1, 3
(1966); see also Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v.
American Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir.
1980) ("Beyond question, Rule 62(d) entitles the
appellant who files a satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay
of money judgment as a matter of right.").
Local Rule 110.1 states that "[u]nless otherwise ordered
by the Court, the amount of any supersedeas bond filed to
stay execution of a money judgment pending appeal shall be
120% of the amount of the judgment plus an additional $500 to
cover costs on appeal." Local Rule 110.1(a) (D. Md.
2018.) Therefore, with regard to the Hopkins Entities, the
amount of the bond must be at least $48, 500, which is the
amount the Hopkins Entities have requested.
this Court has discretion to modify the amount of the bond
required, or require no bond, but the purpose of the bond is
to protect the status quo not potential future awards.
See, e.g., Olympia Equipment Leasing Co. v. Western Union
Telegraph Co., 786 F.2d 794, 800 (7th Cir. 1986)
(Easterbrook, J., concurring) ("The function of a
supercedeas bond is to protect the judgment creditor's
position from erosion during any period that its right to
execute is obstructed by a stay pending appeal.... So the
district judge has a very difficult task-to make the judgment
creditor as well off during the appeal as it would be if it
could execute at once, but no better off."); Poplar
Grove Planting and Refining Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart,
Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1979) ("The
purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo
while protecting the non-appealing party's rights pending
both Star and the Hopkins Entities are obligated to pay the
Star/Hopkins Judgment, and the proposed bond does not cover
all three entities, Defendants are still protected by the
bond if none of the entities satisfies the judgment on
appeal. It does not prevent Defendant from continuing its
enforcement proceedings against Star for the Star Judgment,
nor does it prevent Defendant from continuing its enforcement
proceedings against Star for the Star/Hopkins Judgment. The
bond applied for protects the status quo, and it is
consistent with the Maryland Local Rule requirements,
1. Motion of Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Appellants Hopkins
Hospitality Investors LLC, and Hopkins Investors, LLC, for
approval of Supersedeas Bond (ECF No. 87) is GRANTED.
2. The Bond in the form, amount, and with the surety as shown
at Exhibit A (ECF NO. 87-1) is APPROVED by this Court; and
3. Any proceedings to enforce the Judgment entered in this
action on January . 4, 2019 against Hopkins Hospitality
Investors LLC and Hopkins Investors, LLC are STAYED pending
the determination of the appeal of Hopkins Hospitality
Investors LLC and Hopkins Investors, LLC from this Judgment.
 "The Fourth Circuit has not
adopted a standard to guide the district courts' exercise
of discretion in 'granting unsecured stays.' However,
several district courts within this circuit have followed the
Fifth Circuit guidance of Poplar Grove Planting &
Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d
1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979)." Hoftnann v.
O'Brien, Civil No. WDQ-06-34472009, WL 3216814, at
*2 (D. Md. 2009) ...