Cashman Equipment Corp v. Rozel Operating Co., 3:08-cv-00363

Rozel chartered the JMC 109 from Cashman to use as a breaker barge near Rozel's Gulf of Mexico platform, but Stokes sank the barge and Rozel never deballasted or returned it.
Cashman sued Rozel, Continental Insurance, and others; Stokes & Spiehler Offshore, Inc. was added as a defendant in 2010 alleging negligent entrustment and handling of the JMC 109.
Prior to trial, the parties settled with Continental depositing $1,500,000 into the court registry and Rozel and Cashman dismissing their claims against Continental, with agreed disbursement contingent on trial results.
As part of the settlement, Rozel was required to obtain a $1,300,000 letter of credit to secure any judgment Cashman might obtain in excess of the Continental funds.
Jury trial from December 3–10, 2012 found no fraud, but Rozel breached the charter by failing to return the JMC 109 in good seaworthy condition; damages were $200,000, allocated 40% to Rozel and 60% to Stokes, with the JMC 109 valued at $200,000.
The court entered a judgment for $200,000 (plus interest) with the Continental funds partially held as a supersedeas bond and remaining funds earmarked for Rozel/Stokes after retrieval of the JMC 109; post-trial motions followed, and Cashman appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforcement of settlement and LC cancellation	Rozel/Stokes seek enforcement of the settlement and reimbursement from Continental funds.	Cashman challenges enforcement as improper post-appeal interpretation of the settlement.	DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Stay of execution pending appeal	Cashman seeks a stay with the Continental funds securing the judgment as supersedeas.	The stay should await appeal, possibly with a bond, under Rule 62; or as inconsistent relief without bond.	GRANTED; execution stayed pending appeal.

Winchester v. U.S. Attorney for the S. Dist. of Tex., 68 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1996) (notice of appeal divests district court of jurisdiction except for appellate aid)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Liljeberg Enters., 38 F.3d 1404 (5th Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional limits during appeal proceedings)
Bronson v. La Crosse & Milwaukee R.R. Co., 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 405 (Supreme Court 1864) (supersedeas bond not always required when appeal seeks reversal of district judgment)
Enserch Corp. v. Shand Morahan & Co., Inc., 918 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1990) (bond considerations and stay standard under Rule 62(d))
Poplar Grove Planting and Refining Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189 (5th Cir. 1979) (purpose of supersedeas bond to preserve status quo during appeal)