Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08177/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08177-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gary F. Lowry, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-08177-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 The relevant facts of this case are adequately summarized in the first two pages of 

the Court’s prior Order at Doc. 62. Plaintiffs have refiled their motion for injunctive 

relief, now captioned “Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 63). Although 

Plaintiffs claim to seek preliminary injunctive relief, because the Court has already issued 

a final order on the merits and this order is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals, the appropriate remedy is an injunction pending appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

8(a)(1)(C). 

 The Court interprets Plaintiffs’ motion as a motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s prior Order, in which the Court approved a stipulation between the parties for a 

stay pending appeal and set a bond of $2,000 per month.1

 (Doc. 62 at 3-4). As the Court 

remarked during the hearing, even if Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief were granted 

 

1

 Plaintiffs also appealed this Order. (Docs. 64 & 65). Because Plaintiffs filed the 

pending motion for reconsideration after filing their notice of appeal, this notice of appeal was not effective until the Court issued the present Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). 

Case 3:11-cv-08177-JAT Document 71 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

(without a stipulation for a stay), the Court is still required to set an appropriate bond. 

Thus, Plaintiffs’ motion is effectively a motion for reconsideration of the amount of the 

bond. 

 “The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo while protecting 

the non-appealing party’s rights pending appeal.” Popular Grove Planting & Refining 

Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1979). Plaintiffs 

repeat their bald assertion that there is no risk to Defendant because Plaintiffs’ mortgage 

is secured by their house. (Doc. 63 at 9). Two years ago, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit with 

this Court, under penalty of perjury, in which they listed the value of their house and the 

amount of their mortgage. (Doc. 41). On that affidavit, Plaintiffs reported that the value 

of their house was substantially less than the current balance on their mortgage. (Id.) At 

the April 23, 2015 hearing, Plaintiffs represented to the Court that the value of their 

house had always exceeded the balance on the mortgage and there was very little risk for 

Defendant. 

 In light of the changing evidence over time as to whether the value of Plaintiffs’ 

house exceeds the amount owed on their mortgage, Plaintiffs have not shown that a bond 

is unnecessary to protect Defendants from further financial harm as the result of 

Plaintiffs’ appeal. To the contrary, the evidence shows that Plaintiffs have lived in their 

house for approximately four years while not paying anything on their mortgage. The 

goal of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is, in part, to obtain a free house based on alleged wrongdoing 

by Defendant. See (Doc. 24 at 84) (item “D”). Even if Plaintiffs succeeded before the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on one of their claims, the result would still require an 

equitable resetting of the mortgage terms. Because Plaintiffs declare that they cannot 

even afford the $2,000 monthly bond, which reflects the fair market rent for their home, 

Plaintiffs in essence admit that they have neither the intent nor means to ever pay their 

mortgage—no matter how reasonable its terms. 

 For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ appeal to equity in waiving the bond requirement is 

wholly unpersuasive. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ statement that they can post a “$100 security 

Case 3:11-cv-08177-JAT Document 71 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

as a demonstration of their good-faith and intention,” (Doc. 63 at 14), is unavailing 

because the facts of this case demonstrate a clear lack of good faith on the part of 

Plaintiffs. The Court notes that imposing the $2,000 monthly bond is no greater burden 

upon Plaintiffs than what would result if Plaintiffs prevail before the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals on a legitimate point of law. Accordingly, the bond must be posted within 48 

hours or the Court will turn to Defendant’s recently-filed Motion to Quash Stay. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, captioned as 

“Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction,” (Doc. 63) is denied. 

 Dated this 20th day of May, 2015. 

Case 3:11-cv-08177-JAT Document 71 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 3