Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02799/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-02799-55/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 R. BECKER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

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

Defendants.

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

ORDER

Presently before the court is plaintiff Dennly Becker’s (“plaintiff”) motion for an order 

directing defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Inc. (“defendant”) to show cause why it should not

be ordered to rescind copies of the abstract of judgment it recorded in San Joaquin County and 

Placer County and to identify and rescind any copies of the abstract of judgment it may have 

recorded in other counties. (ECF No. 268.) Defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion 

and plaintiff filed a reply. (ECF Nos. 269, 270.) The undersigned has fully considered the 

parties’ briefs and appropriate portions of the record.

1

 For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s 

motion is denied.

////

////

 

1

This motion was submitted on the record and briefs without oral argument pursuant to Local 

Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 271.)

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 272 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 4
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 asserts in his motion that the abstract of judgment issued in this action concerning 

the court’s award of attorneys’ fees to defendant contains a false statement that a stay of 

enforcement of that judgment has not been put in place in this action even though a stay of 

enforcement was ordered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) that went into effect 

after plaintiff posted a supersedeas bond on April 20, 2015, and remains in effect pending his 

appeal of the court’s award of attorneys’ fees to defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff argues, 

defendant’s recording of this document with the county recorders’ offices is in violation of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and Local Rule 180(e) because it contains a material 

misrepresentation that no stay on the judgment has been implemented in this action. Plaintiff 

appears to assert that defendant’s recording of the false abstract of judgment places an unjustified

cloud on the title of plaintiff’s properties and that the recording will effectively permit defendant 

to improperly pursue enforcement of the stayed judgment. Plaintiff’s arguments are not well 

taken.

Numerous courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have determined that the

recording of an abstract of judgment while a stay of execution under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 62 is in place is not prohibited under that Rule. See, e.g., Yusov v. Yusuf, 892 F.2d 

784, 785, n.1 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the district court’s refusal “to expunge the abstract of 

judgment from the county records[ ] was not an abuse of discretion” when the recording occurred 

while a stay of execution under Rule 62 was in place because “[r]ecording a judgment is 

generally not held to be prohibited by Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a)”); In re Vanden Bossche, 125 B.R. 

571, 573 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (“The view that Rule 62(a) does not prohibit the recordation of an 

abstract of judgment during [the time the automatic stay required by that rule is in place] has 

received both judicial and academic acceptance.”); Anastos v. M.J.D.M. Truck Rentals, Inc., 521 

F.2d 1301 (7th Cir. 1975) (noting that Rule 62(a) does not prevent recording of the judgment); 7 

J. Moore & J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 62.03 n.6 (2d ed. 1987) (collecting cases). 

While those decisions have focused on the automatic stay imposed by Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 62(a) and not the automatic stay imposed by the court’s approval of a supersedeas 

bond under Rule 62(d), as is the case here, the reasoning provided by those courts is equally 

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 272 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 4
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

applicable to the stay at issue here. The general function of both Rule 62(a) and Rule 62(d) is to 

prevent a victorious party from executing the judgment on property owned by the loser before the 

loser has an opportunity to prepare an appeal of that judgment. See In re Vanden Bossche, 125 

B.R. at 573 (“The purpose of the stay provision is to give a party time to prepare for an appeal or 

to determine what other course of action to take, while at the same time prohibiting the victorious 

party from racing out and executing the judgment on property owned by the loser.”); J. Perez & 

Cia., Inc. v. United States, 578 F. Supp. 1318, 1320 (D.P.R.) aff’d, 747 F.2d 813 (1st Cir. 1984)

(“This matter-of-right stay [under Rule 26(d)] as its name indicates supersedes the right of 

enforcement of the previous judgment. . . . The bond operates to [the] appellant’s advantage and 

deprives the appellee of the immediate benefits of his judgment.”). Accordingly, the act of 

recording an abstract of judgment is consistent with this purpose as it does not constitute an 

execution of the judgment nor otherwise undermine the stay. See In re Vanden Bossche, 125 

B.R. at 573 (“[B]ecause the act of recording a judgment does not have the effect of transferring 

any interest in property, allowing a party to record an abstract would be consistent with the 

purpose of Rule 62(a).”). Therefore, defendant’s mere recording of the abstract does not violate 

Rule 62(d) as plaintiff seems to suggest.

Moreover, because a stay on execution of the judgment awarding defendant attorneys’ 

fees is in place during the pendency of plaintiff’s appeal of that judgment due to the court’s 

approval of plaintiff’s supersedeas bond, defendant is prevented from seeking execution of that 

judgment unless and until that stay is lifted. While the recording of the abstract does create a 

valid judgment lien under applicable California law,2see In re Vanden Bossche, 125 B.R. at 575 

(“[T]he Court finds that recording an abstract of a judgment obtained in federal court, even if 

recorded during the [Rule 62(a)] automatic stay period, does create a valid judgment lien under 

applicable California law.”), it does not permit defendant to execute on that judgment while the 

stay is in place, even though the abstract incorrectly states that a stay has not been ordered. The 

mere fact that the copies of the abstract of judgment recorded by defendant erroneously state that 

 

2 Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 697.040(b), unless a court orders otherwise, a stay 

of enforcement does not prevent the creation of a judgment lien.

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 272 Filed 12/03/15 Page 3 of 4
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

no stay of enforcement has been put in place does not nullify the fact that a stay pursuant to Rule 

62(d) is still in place during the pendency of plaintiff’s appeal of the court’s award of attorneys’

fees. Therefore, plaintiff’s assertion that the recording of the abstract of judgment in this action 

permits defendant to collect on the stayed judgment awarding attorneys’ fees while plaintiff 

appeals that judgment is without merit. Furthermore, because the abstract of judgment as 

recorded creates a valid judgment lien, albeit one that cannot yet be enforced as a result of the 

stay pending plaintiff’s appeal, the title of plaintiff’s properties to which copies of the abstract 

have been recorded against have not been unduly burdened as plaintiff appears to contend.3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an order to show 

cause (ECF No. 268) is DENIED.

Dated: December 3, 2015

 

3

Plaintiff also asserts that his motion is made pursuant to Local Rule 180(e), which concerns the 

standards of professional conduct by which attorneys admitted to practice in this court are to

adhere. This provision in no way provides the relief plaintiff seeks through his motion. 

Furthermore, while it appears that plaintiff invokes this local rule in order to insinuate that 

counsel for defendant acted unethically by recording copies of the abstract of judgment 

containing the erroneous statement that no stay has been placed on the execution of that 

judgment, this argument is frivolous as defendant merely recorded the abstract as it had been 

issued by the Clerk of Court pursuant to the court’s direction. (See ECF No. 244.) 

Case 2:10-cv-02799-TLN-KJN Document 272 Filed 12/03/15 Page 4 of 4