Opinion
Civil No. 2001-147.
December 21, 2007
Daryl C. Barnes, Esq., St. Croix, U.S.V.I., For the Plaintiffs. Douglas C. Beach, Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For the Defendants Wyndham International Inc., Wyndham Management Corp., and Sugar Bay Club and Resort Corp. James L. Hymes III, Esq., Charles S. Russell, Jr., Esq., St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., For the Defendant Bryan Hornby.
ORDER
Before the Court is the motion of defendants Wyndham International, Inc.; Wyndham Management Corporation; and Sugar Bay Club and Resort Corporation (collectively, the "Wyndham Defendants") for approval of a supersedeas bond and a stay pending appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter is the result of the alleged molestation of a young girl by an employee at a vacation resort.Defendant Bryan Hornby ("Hornby") was employed as a children's counselor at the Wyndham Sugar Bay Club and Resort (the "Resort") in St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Plaintiffs Flora Nicholas and Paul Gayter and their minor daughter, S.G. (together, the "Plaintiffs"), vacationed at the Resort from April 9, 2000, to April 15, 2000. During that vacation, Hornby was in contact with S.G. in his capacity as an employee of the Resort's "Kids Klub." At the conclusion of the vacation, S.G. reported that Hornby had sexually molested her on several occasions. Hornby was later convicted of unlawful sexual contact with S.G. Following Hornby's conviction, the Plaintiffs brought this action against the Wyndham Defendants; Rik Blyth, the general manager of the Resort (collectively, the "Wyndham Defendants"); and Hornby, alleging that Hornby had sexually molested S.G.
At a hearing on April 26, 2005, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Rik Blyth ("Blyth"). ( See Hr'g Tr. 43:18-21, 50: 7-13, Apr. 26, 2005.) Consequently, Blyth is no longer a defendant in this matter. ( See Order, Nov. 13, 2007.)
Several years of voluminous discovery gave way to protracted settlement efforts. At a hearing on July 15, 2005 (the "Settlement Hearing"), the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement agreement, and recited the terms of the Agreement on the record. On November 20, 2007, the Court issued a ruling to reflect the essential terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement, including the settlement amount of _____. The Wyndham Defendants thereafter sought reconsideration of the Court's ruling. That motion was denied.
( See Mem. Op. and J., Nov. 20, 2007.)
( See Mem. Op. and Order, Dec. 4, 2007.)
The Wyndham Defendants now seek approval of a supersedeas bond and a stay pending appeal of the Court's rulings pursuant to Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. ANALYSIS
Rule 62(d) provides:
If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond, except in an action described in Rule 62(a)(1) or (2). The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.
FED. R. CIV. P. 62(d); see also In re TWA, 18 F.3d 208, 211 n. 6 (3d Cir. 1994). The rule entitles a party who files a satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay of money judgment as a matter of right. Id. at 211; see also Arban v. West Publ'g Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003); Hebert v. Exxon Corp., 953 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1992); NLRB v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988); Donovan v. Fall River Foundry Co., 696 F.2d 524, 526 (7th Cir. 1982); Federal Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
A supersedeas bond is any form of security, whether in the form of cash, property, or surety bond, which a court may require "of one who petitions to set aside a judgment or execution and from which the other party may be made whole if the action is unsuccessful." Black's Law Dictionary 1289 (5th ed. 1979); see also Milligan v. Khodra, D.C. Civ. App. No. 1999-136, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28064, at *31 (D.V.I. App. Div. Sept. 30, 2004). In order to make the other party whole, such a supersedeas bond "must normally be in a sum sufficient to pay the judgment and costs, interest, and damages for delay." Patrick v. John Odato Water Serv., 767 F. Supp. 107, 109 n. 3 (D.V.I. App. Div. 1991).
Here, the Wyndham Defendants have posted a supersedeas bond in the amount of _____. The settlement agreement provides that the Wyndham Defendants shall pay the Plaintiffs _____. In imposing a judgment on the settlement agreement, the Court also imposed pre-judgment interest, at the rate prescribed by V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 951, from January 1, 2006, until November 20, 2007, and post-judgment interest, at the rate prescribed by V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 5, § 426, from November 20, 2007 until the date of payment.
The Court finds that the supersedeas bond is sufficient to pay the settlement amount, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest that will accrue during the pendency of the Wyndham Defendants' appeal.
For the reasons stated above, it is hereby
ORDERED that the supersedeas bond is APPROVED; and it is further
ORDERED that the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.