771 F.3d 301
5th Cir.2014Background
- JSW moved for a stay of execution pending appeal under Rule 62(f) and sought to cap the bond at $25 million under Texas law or jointly for all defendants; the court denied the stay and granted sealing of the appendix.
- MM Steel obtained a judgment over $150 million jointly and severally against JSW and others; the core issue was whether Rule 62(f) ties the supersedeas bond to a $25 million cap.
- The majority analyzed whether Texas law creates a judgment lien sufficient for Rule 62(f) and whether creating such a lien is a ministerial act.
- Earlier district court decisions (Castillo and post-Castillo Texas cases) conflicted on whether Texas lien creation is ministerial; this opinion rejects the ministerial acts view for Texas.
- The court ultimately held that Texas procedures to create a judgment lien are more than ministerial, so Texas lien law does not make a stay under Rule 62(f) depend on a $25 million cap; thus the Rule 62(f) question is answered in the negative and the second question was not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 62(f) cap supersedeas bonds at $25 million under Texas law? | MM Steel argues Texas law does impose a $25 million cap. | JSW argues Texas law limits the bond to $25 million for all or for JSW individually. | No; Texas lien procedures are not ministerial, so the cap does not apply. |
| Are defendants jointly or individually subject to any Texas cap if applicable? | MM Steel contends a statewide cap would apply to all defendants. | JSW seeks joint or individual application of the cap. | Not reached. |
| Was JSW's Rule 69(a)(1) argument waived for inadequate briefing? | JSW asserted Texas procedures control under Rule 69(a)(1). | Any argument not adequately briefed should be considered waived. | Waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Castillo v. Montelepre, Inc., 999 F.2d 931 (5th Cir.1993) (whether Rule 62(f) applies to give state-law security for appeal)
- Umbrella Bank, FSB v. Jamison, 341 B.R. 835 (W.D.Tex.2006) (Texas lien creation viewed in light of Castillo)
- El Paso Independent School District v. Richard R., 599 F.Supp.2d 759 (W.D.Tex.2008) (Texas abstract requirements and ministerial vs. non-ministerial acts)
- Service Temps, Inc. v. EEOC, 782 F.Supp.2d 291 (N.D.Tex.2011) (Texas §52.003 substantial compliance mandatory; lien not automatic)
- Wilson v. Dvorak, 228 S.W.3d 228 (Tex.App.2007) (substantial compliance required for lien attachment)
- Rodriguez-Vazquez v. Lopez-Martinez, 345 F.3d 13 (1st Cir.2003) (commentary on liens and stays under Rule 62(f))
- Van Huss v. Landsberg, 262 F.Supp. 869 (W.D.Mo.1967) (ministerial nature of abstract filing examined)