TAMAKI v. TAMAKI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
STEPHANIE TAMAKI, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:23-cv-00312-LEW
)
ATSUSHI TAMAKI, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER DISSOLVING ATTACHMENT AND STAYING
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Atsushi Tamaki’s Motion to Dissolve
and Vacate All Liens and Attachments and to Lift Restrictions on the Properties (ECF No.
69), which motion Defendant filed subsequent to posting a supersedeas bond in the amount
of $4,400,500.00, as required by a prior order of the Court as a condition to obtain a stay
of execution on a $4,000,000.00 money judgment in favor of Plaintiff Stephanie Tamaki.
The amount of the bond is fully sufficient to secure Plaintiff’s interest in satisfaction of the
Court’s Judgment according to Local Rule 65.1 and well exceeds the amount of the
attachment 	order 	previously 	entered 	in 	this 	matter. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Motion 	is
GRANTED.
Attachment and Trustee Process
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 and Local Rule 64, the Court applies
Maine law when reviewing a motion for attachment or a motion to dissolve an attachment.
See Hilton Sea, Inc. v. DMR Yachts, Inc., 750 F. Supp. 35, 36 (D. Me. 1990). 	When
Case 2:23-cv-00312-LEW Document 79 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
considering the issuance of an order of attachment, a critical consideration is whether a
judgment will exceed the value of a bond or other security. Me. R. Civ. P. 4A(c), 4B(c).
Upon the filing of a surety of a bond, “any prior attachment against the defendant to satisfy
a judgment on the claim for which security has been tendered shall be dissolved.” Me. R.
Civ. P. 4A(d)(2). 	The same holds true for attachment on trustee process. Me. R. Civ. P.
4B(d)(2). 	The bond being sufficient to warrant dissolution of the Court’s Order of
Attachment, the Court hereby VACATES the December 6, 2023 Order on Motion for
Attachment and Attachment on Trustee Process.
Writ of Execution
On May 29, 2024, the Clerk issued the Execution (ECF No. 30) on the Court’s
Judgment. 	On August 2, 2024, I issued an Order (ECF No. 59) that denied Defendant’s
Motion to Stay and Vacate Execution of Judgment, made in the absence of a suitable bond,
but explained that, pursuant to Federal Rule 62(b), execution would be stayed pending
resolution of Defendant’s appeal upon Defendant’s posting of a bond in the amount of
$4,400,500.00, which amount, per Local Rule 65.1, is sufficient to secure the Judgment in
the amount of $4,000,000.00.1 The bond satisfies the requirement and the requested stay
of execution is therefore GRANTED.
1 Per Local Rule 65.1: “a bond . . . staying execution of a money judgment shall be in the amount of the
judgment plus ten percent (10%) of the amount to cover interest and any award of damages for delay plus
Five Hundred Dollars ($500) to cover costs, unless the Court directs otherwise.”
Case 2:23-cv-00312-LEW Document 79 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Stay Conditions
In the August 2 Order I conditioned any stay occasioned by a bond on the
requirement that Mr. Tamaki not sell, transfer, convey, encumber, pledge or in any other
manner, other than is reasonably necessary to provide for his cost of living and to practice
or engage in a profession or occupation, dissipate any assets or any other things or right of
any value whatsoever.” This was a condition invited by Mr. Tamaki “[p]ending the time
required for an appeal of the judgment.” Motion at 9, ¶ c. However, this condition appears
to have been proposed on the presumption that the Court might stay execution based on
conditions designed to protect Plaintiff but falling short of the full bond amount set by
Local Rule 65.1 (establishing presumptive amount of bond needed to stay execution of a
money judgment “unless the Court directs otherwise”). 	See, e.g., Popular Grove Planting
& Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979) (stating
if the “debtor’s present financial condition is such that the posting of a full bond would
impose an undue financial burden, the court is similarly free to exercise a discretion to
fashion some other arrangement for substitute security”). 	Because Mr. Tamaki has now
posted a fully adequate bond, the conditions are likewise lifted.
Conclusion
Defendant’s Motion to Dissolve Liens and Attachments is GRANTED (ECF No.
69), the Stay of Execution is GRANTED (ECF No. 30), the attachments authorized under
the Order on Motion for Attachment and Attachment on Trustee Process (ECF No. 13) are
DISSOLVED, and that Order is HEREBY VACATED.
Case 2:23-cv-00312-LEW Document 79 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of November, 2024.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:23-cv-00312-LEW Document 79 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>