1

4501832-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL § 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND § ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H) 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS § 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

5331, PRAYING FOR § 3:20-CV-05980 – RV/MJF 

EXONERATION § 

FROM OR LIMITATION § SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

OF LIABILITY § LACEY A. COLLIER 

 § 

 § MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 § HOPE THAI CANNON 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DEFER PAYMENT OF 

MONETARY SANCTIONS UNTIL ISSUANCE OF INTERLOCUTORY 

DECREE ON LIABILITY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

MOTION TO APPROVE SUPERSEDEAS BOND TO STAY EXECUTION 

OF MONETARY SANCTIONS ORDER PENDING APPEAL 

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW 

Skanska USA Civil Southeast Inc. and Skanska USA, Inc. (collectively, 

“Skanska”) file this Motion to Defer Payment of Monetary Sanctions Until Issuance 

of Interlocutory Decree on Liability or, in the Alternative, Motion to Approve 

Supersedeas Bond to Stay Execution of Monetary Sanctions Order Pending Appeal 

and Memorandum of Law, and in support state as follows: 

On October 1, 2021, Magistrate Judge Hope Thai Cannon issued an Order on 

Claimants’ Spoliation Motion and for Sanctions (Doc. #1298) (the “Order”). The 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 8
2

4501832-1

Order held that Claimants are entitled to a sanctions award of fees in the amount of 

$59,780 and costs in the amount of $32,629.96. The Order requires payment within 

thirty (30) days, which expires on November 1, 2021. 

Skanska respectfully asks that the Court defer payment of the sanctions award 

of costs and fees until the time to appeal the forthcoming interlocutory decree on 

liability by the Honorable Judge Collier following the bench trial held in this case 

on October 18, 2021 through October 22, 2021. In addition, Skanska respectfully 

requests that the Court incorporate the sanctions award in that interlocutory decree, 

or direct the clerk to do so. Other courts issuing sanctions awards in similar contexts 

have permitted parties to defer payment of costs and fees until final judgment is 

entered in the case. See Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc. v. Wall St. Equity Group, Inc., 2012 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135218 at *17 (D. Neb. 2012) (Where court awarded sanctions, 

order deferred payment until final judgment: “The clerk shall enter this award as part 

of the judgment eventually entered in this case, unless at or before the time judgment 

is entered, the clerk is notified by the defendant that the award has been paid.”). 

Skanska intends to seek appellate review of the Order (Doc. # 1298) and the 

underlying orders (Doc. # 1265, 1280, 1310). Payment of the award could potentially 

moot the appeal. See, e.g., RES-GA Cobblestone, LLC v. Blake Const. & Dev., LLC, 

718 F.3d 1308, 1315 (11th Cir. 2013) (payment of a civil fine imposed under the 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 8
3

4501832-1

court’s “authority to sanction a litigant’s bad-faith actions renders moot any appeal 

of the sanction, at least where there is no objective manifestation it is conditional”). 

By this motion to defer payment, Skanska seeks to avoid piecemeal appeal, as 

granting the relief requested would avoid the need to immediately appeal the 

sanctions award and would make the sanctions award appealable at the same time 

with the interlocutory decree on liability, which would be appealable under 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(3). Alternatively, Skanska respectfully requests, pursuant to Rule 

62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule E of the Local Admiralty and 

Maritime Rules for U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, that the 

Court approve supersedeas bond pending appeal. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) provides as follows: 

(b) Stay by Bond or Other Security. At any time after judgment is 

entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. 

The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or other security 

and remains in effect for the time specified in the bond or other security. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). 

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

protecting the non-appealing party's rights pending appeal.” Prudential Ins. Co. of 

Am. v. Boyd, 781 F.2d 1494, 1498 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Poplar Grove Planting 

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

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 8
4

4501832-1

1979)).1 Pursuant to Rule 62(b) and Rule E (4) and (15) of the Local Admiralty and 

Maritime Rules, Skanska moves for approval of a bond in the amount of the fees and 

costs awarded in the Order totaling $92,409.96 plus 10% to provide security for 

interest, costs, and any award of damages for delay, pending its appeal from the 

Order and a potential appeal from the interlocutory decree on liability and for a stay 

of the enforcement of the Order pending the resolution of the appellate proceedings. 

A copy of the proposed form of the Bond is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 

 The Order directs that “Claimants” are entitled to an award of fees and costs. 

In this case, there are over 1,000 Claimants. Because of the large number of 

Claimants, Skanska would have no reassurance that it could recoup its payment from 

those Claimants. See Alabama Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Boeing Co., No. 2:11-CV03577-RDP, 2018 WL 6220075, at *2 (N.D. Ala. June 15, 2018) (“On the other 

hand, there is a very real danger that the parties and the court will not be able to get 

the cow (or, in this case, the funds) back in the barn. Therefore, to accommodate 

each of these concerns, while the court will delay actual payment, Boeing must 

post a bond.”) (emphasis added); see also Harris v. Hobbs, 2013 WL 12108607, at 

*1 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013) (“I ordinarily defer determination of the amount of a 

fee award until after resolution of any appeal. This is good case management for 

1

 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), the 

Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions handed down by the 

former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 8
5

4501832-1

several reasons” including that an “appellate decision sometimes affects a party's 

entitlement to a fee award.”); see also Painter v. Ju-Lin, No. 1:08-CV-122, 2010 WL 

1329742, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 29, 2010) (finding a sanction appropriate, but 

delaying “imposition of the sanction until a final resolution of the case”). 

 The bond is necessary to ensure that Skanska’s appellate rights are preserved, 

as payment of the sanctions award could potentially moot the appeal from the Order. 

See, e.g., RES-GA Cobblestone, LLC v. Blake Const. & Dev., LLC, 718 F.3d 1308, 

1315 (11th Cir. 2013). 

CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, Skanska moves: 

(1) to defer the November 1, 2021 payment deadline set forth in the Order (Doc. 

#1298) to coincide with the deadline to appeal the upcoming interlocutory 

decree on liability following the bench trial held in this case on October 18, 

2021 through October 22, 2021 and respectfully request that the Court include 

the award of fees and costs in that interlocutory decree, or direct the clerk to 

do so; or, in the alternative, 

(2) for approval of a bond in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and to stay 

enforcement of the Order pending resolution of the appeal from the Order and 

the appeal from the interlocutory decree on liability. 

[SIGNATURE FOLLOWS ON NEXT PAGE]

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 5 of 8
6

4501832-1

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

SCOTT A. REMINGTON 

Florida Bar No. 122483 

JEREMY C. BRANNING 

Florida Bar No. 507016 

ELIZABETH C. BILLHIMER 

Florida Bar No. 121986 

CLARK PARTINGTON

P.O. Box 13010 

Pensacola, FL 32591-3010 

Telephone: (850) 434-9200 

Facsimile: (850) 432-7340 

 Harold. K. Watson, Esq. 

Derek A. Walker, Esq. 

Charles P. Blanchard, Esq. 

Jon W. Wise, Esq. 

CHAFFE MCCALL, LLP 

801 Travis, Suite 1910 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 546-9800 

Facsimile: (713) 546-9806 

Attorneys for Skanska USA Civil Southeast 

Inc. and Skanska USA, Inc. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 6 of 8
7

4501832-1

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AS TO WORD COUNT 

 I hereby certify that, as required by Local Rule 7.1(F), this Opposition 

contains ______ words, counted as provided in Local Rule 7.1(F). 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

ELIZABETH C. BILLHIMER 

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised in this 

motion as required by N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 7.1(B), the undersigned counsel for Skanska 

has communicated with counsel for Claimants by both telephone and by e-mails, 

exchanging proposed versions of a joint motion, over the past week. Agreement 

appeared to be within reach, but ultimately, on the date of the filing of this motion, 

negotiations reached an impasse. Counsel for Claimants have authorized the 

undersigned to represent to the Court that the Claimants do not consent to this motion 

and they do not agree to defer payment of the sanctions award; but they do not object 

to the filing of a supersedeas bond on the sanctions amount. 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

ELIZABETH C. BILLHIMER 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 8
8

4501832-1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the 

Clerk of Court and furnished to all counsel of record through the Court’s CM/ECF 

electronic filing system on this 29th day of October, 2021: 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

ELIZABETH C. BILLHIMER 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1325 Filed 10/29/21 Page 8 of 8