Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02799-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNLY BECKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:10-cv-2799-TLN-KJN PS

ORDER

Currently before the court are two motions filed by plaintiff. Through one of the motions, 

plaintiff requests that the court issue an order denying defendant’s request for issuance of an 

abstract of judgment with respect to the judgment issued on defendant’s attorneys’ fees motion. 

(ECF No. 231.) Through the other motion, plaintiff requests the court to approve plaintiff’s 

proposal to post a supersedeas bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) with 

regard to the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’ fees and costs in order to obtain an 

automatic stay of this judgment pending plaintiff’s appeal. (ECF No. 237.)1 Defendant filed an 

opposition and plaintiff filed a reply with respect to each motion. (ECF Nos. 234, 238, 241, 242.)

////

 

1

Plaintiff proceeds on an amended motion. On March 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a document styled 

as a withdrawal of his original motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond that he had filed on 

February 20, 2015. (ECF No. 237.) The court subsequently construed this motion as an amended 

motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond. (ECF No. 240.)

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 244 Filed 04/08/15 Page 1 of 6
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

2

 Plaintiff’s motion to deny the issuance of an abstract of judgment was submitted on the 

papers without oral argument. (ECF No. 239.) Plaintiff’s other motion is currently scheduled for 

a hearing before the undersigned on April 9, 2015. (ECF 240.) However, upon reviewing the 

parties’ briefing with respect to this motion, the court concludes that oral argument would not be 

of material assistance in resolving this motion. Accordingly, this motion is submitted on the 

record and briefing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g) and the April 9, 2015 hearing is vacated. After 

considering the parties’ filings and supporting documentation, the court rules on plaintiff’s 

motions as follows.

I. Motion for Order Denying Defendant’s Request for Issuance of an Abstract of 

Judgment

First, the court addresses plaintiff’s motion to deny defendant’s request for the Clerk of 

Court to issue an abstract of judgment. Through this motion, plaintiff argues that issuance of an 

abstract of judgment would prejudice him because he did not receive notice of defendant’s 

request until the day the 14-day automatic stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) 

expired. (ECF No. 231 at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that defendant misrepresented in the certificate of 

service for its request that the filing was served to plaintiff via overnight mail, when it had in fact 

been sent by first class mail. Plaintiff argues that this misrepresentation prejudiced him because it 

misrepresented to the court that plaintiff had received notice of defendant’s request several days 

prior to the date that he actually did receive it, and that plaintiff received the notice several days 

prior to the end of the initial 14-day stay, which he did not. Plaintiff appears to argue that 

defendant’s request violated the requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a) that “no 

execution may issue on a judgment, nor may proceedings be taken to enforce it, until 14 days 

have passed after its entry.” Plaintiff also appears to claim that the timing of defendant’s notice 

of its request prejudiced him because he was unable to file an opposition to this request or a 

motion to stay this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) prior to the end of the 

14-day stay. 

Plaintiff fails to show how defendant’s request was in violation of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 62(a) or in any way prejudicial. As an initial matter, it appears that plaintiff confuses

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 244 Filed 04/08/15 Page 2 of 6
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

3

defendant’s request for issuance of an abstract of judgment as a request for execution of the 

judgment. Issuance of an abstract of judgment, and even recordation of an abstract of judgment, 

“is not a step in the process of execution upon the judgment.” Indus. Indem. Co. v. Levine, 49 

Cal. App. 3d 698, 699 (Ct. App. 1975).

2

 Rather, an abstract of judgment is a written summary of 

the judgment that has been entered and merely reflects the amount that is owed to the prevailing 

party and any other terms of the judgment. Accordingly, to the extent that plaintiff argues that he 

was prejudiced because defendant’s request was an attempt at executing on the judgment 

awarding attorneys’ fees and costs prior to the end of the initial 14-day stay pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 62(a), the argument is without merit. 

Furthermore, to date, no abstract of judgment has been issued regarding the judgment 

awarding defendant attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff fails to show how defendant’s request 

somehow prevented or hindered him in filing a motion seeking a stay pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 62(d) or prematurely sought execution on the judgment. Therefore, plaintiff’s 

assertion that defendant’s request was prejudicial is not well taken.

Nothing prevents defendant from being issued the requested abstract of judgment. The 

automatic 14-day stay pursuant to Rule 62(d) did not prevent defendant from obtaining, or even 

recording, an abstract during that time period. See Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 784, 785, n.1 (9th 

Cir. 1989) (“The court’s refusal to stay execution of the judgment, or to expunge the abstract of 

judgment from the county records, was not an abuse of discretion. Recording a judgment is 

generally not held to be prohibited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a).”). Similarly, plaintiff’s pending 

motion for a stay pursuant to Rule 62(d) does not prevent the abstract from being issued to 

defendant. Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s motion and directs the Clerk of Court to issue 

an abstract of judgment to defendant.

////

////

////

 

2

Pursuant to 28 USC § 1962, enforcement of federal judgments and the establishment of liens 

pursuant to such judgments are based on the law of the state under which the judgment is entered.

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 244 Filed 04/08/15 Page 3 of 6
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

4

II. Motion for Approval to Post a Supersedeas Bond

With regard to the motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond, plaintiff requests that 

the court approve his proposed bond instrument, which proposes a cash bond in lieu of a surety 

bond, and issue a stay on the execution of judgment with regard to the attorneys’ fees and costs 

awarded to defendant.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), a party may obtain a stay of execution 

of a judgment as a matter of right upon the court’s approval of a supersedeas bond. Even though 

Rule 62(d) provides only that a party may post a supersedeas bond in order to obtain such a stay, 

district courts have discretion to “allow other forms of judgment guarantee” in lieu of a bond. 

International Telemeter, Corp. v. Hamlin International Corp., 754 F.2d 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 

1985). 

In this District, Local Rule 151(e) generally requires that proposed bonds take the form of 

a surety bond that is acknowledged by both the party offering it and that party’s surety. However,

Local Rule 151(d), which specifically concerns supersedeas bonds, grants the court wide 

equitable discretion to depart from the normal bond requirement.3 Furthermore, Local Rule 

151(h) gives the court discretion to permit a party to post cash in lieu of a surety bond in order to 

satisfy the supersedeas bond requirement in Rule 62(d). Such a deposit must be “accompanied by 

a written instrument, to be approved by the Court, executed and acknowledged by the party, 

setting forth the conditions upon which the deposit is made, and the fact that the Clerk may 

collect or sell the obligations and apply the proceeds, or the cash deposited, in the case of default 

as provided in the bond.” Local Rule 151(h).

Here, plaintiff attached a proposed cash bond instrument to his declaration filed in support 

of his motion. (ECF No. 237-2 at 9.) Plaintiff proposes to post a bond of $188,706.43 in cash 

with the Clerk of Court, which amounts to 125 percent of the judgment amount entered against 

him with respect to defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs award and satisfies this District’s 

amount requirement pursuant to Local Rule 151(d). However, as defendant notes in its 

 

3

Local Rule 151(d) provides: “When required, a supersedeas bond shall be 125 percent of the 

amount of the judgment unless the Court otherwise orders.” (emphasis added.) 

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 244 Filed 04/08/15 Page 4 of 6
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

5

opposition, plaintiff’s proposed instrument does not satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 151(h) 

because it does not adequately set forth the conditions upon which the deposit will be made or 

specify the terms of default. With respect to the conditions upon which the deposit is made, the 

instrument should state that the deposit is made upon condition of the court’s order granting the 

proposed instrument and is to be held by the Clerk of Court during the pendency of the appeal of 

the court’s award of attorney’s fees. Regarding the terms of default, the instrument should 

provide language that the deposited funds shall be released to defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

in the event that plaintiff’s appeal with respect to the award of attorneys’ fees and costs is 

dismissed or the court’s order is affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Because the proposed instrument does not comply with Local Rule 151(h), the court 

denies plaintiff’s motion without prejudice. Nevertheless, defendant notes that if plaintiff’s 

proposed bond instrument were amended to include the clarifications described above, then 

defendant would have no objections to the court granting plaintiff’s request to post the proposed 

cash bond. Plaintiff indicates in his reply brief that he is willing to amend his proposed bond 

instrument to provide such clarifications. Accordingly, the court directs plaintiff to file an 

amended proposed bond instrument that provides the clarifications detailed above within 10 days 

of this order. Upon filing, the court will review plaintiff’s proposed amended instrument to 

determine whether it complies with the requirements of Local Rule 151(h). If the amended 

instrument is approved by the court, plaintiff shall deposit with the Clerk of Court a money bond 

in the amount of $188,706.43 accompanied by the approved instrument. Once plaintiff deposits 

this bond, execution of the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’ fees and costs shall be stayed 

pending plaintiff’s appeal of that judgment before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond currently 

scheduled for April 9, 2015, at 10:00 A.M., is VACATED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an order denying defendant’s request for issuance of an

abstract of judgment (ECF No. 231) is DENIED.

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 244 Filed 04/08/15 Page 5 of 6
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

6

3. The Clerk of Court shall forthwith send defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. an 

abstract of judgment.

4. Plaintiff’s motion for approval to post a supersedeas bond (ECF No. 237) is

DENIED without prejudice.

5. Within 10 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an amended proposed

cash bond instrument that includes the clarifications detailed above. Once filed, the court will 

review the amended instrument. If approved, the court will issue an order directing plaintiff to 

deposit with the Clerk of Court a cash bond in the amount of $188,706.43 accompanied by the 

approved instrument. Once deposited, execution of the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’ 

fees and costs shall be stayed pending plaintiff’s appeal of that judgment before the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2015

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 244 Filed 04/08/15 Page 6 of 6