Lighthouse Masonry, Inc. v. Vision Construction Management, Inc. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
LIGHTHOUSE MASONRY, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
VISION CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT, INC.; 110 NORTH
MAIN MANAGEMENT, LLC;
ROBERT L. SHAFFER a/k/a RICK
SHAFFER; JCM OPPORTUNITY
FUND I, LLC; JOYAL CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC; JCM FUND
MANAGER, LLC; JCM INVESTMENT
MANAGER, LLC; GARY F. JOYAL;
ABC CORPS 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10;
and JANE DOE 1-10,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
24-cv-339-JJM-PAS
ORDER
Before the Court, are two motions filed by Plaintiff Lighthouse Masonry, Inc.:
Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery Against Shaffer Defendants (
from
Defendant Robert P. Shaffer a/k/a Rick Shaffer) (ECF No. 100); and Motion to
Require Posting of Appeal Bond and Supersedeas Bond (
from Defendants Vision
Construction Management, Inc., 110 North Main Management, LLC, and Robert P.
Shaffer.) (ECF No. 101).
I. 	Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery
The Motion to Compel Defendant Robert P. Shaffer a/k/a Rick Shaffer is
GRANTED. 	The Defendant has not objected to the motion, and the Plaintiff is
entitled 	to 	the 	post-judgment 	discovery 	requested. 	The 	Court 	ORDERS 	that
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 106 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendant Robert P. Shaffer a/k/a Rick Shaffer provide full and complete discovery
responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Post-Judgment Interrogatories and First Set of
Post-Judgment Requests for Production of Documents on or before April 10, 2026.
II. 	Motion to Require Posting of Appeal Bond and Supersedeas Bond
The Plaintiff has requested an appeal bond under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 7; and (2) a supersedeas bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b).
a. 	Appeal Bond
The Court finds that, based on the history in this case, a meaningful risk exists
that the Defendants will not pay appellate costs, that the appeal is frivolous, and the
appeal appears likely to impose significant expense on the Plaintiffs. 	Therefore,
requiring an appeal bond is necessary here.
b. 	Supersedeas Bond
The Defendants have correctly pointed out that Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 imposes a
bond requirement only when a party seeks a stay. 	(“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.)
Here, the Defendants have not requested a stay, and therefore the Plaintiff can
execute on the judgment at its pleasure because the filing of an appeal alone does not
automatically stay the judgment. 	The Plaintiff retains the right to enforce the
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 106 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
judgment (garnish wages, levy assets, etc.) during the appeal unless a stay is
obtained.
III. 	Conclusion
The Courts ORDERS the Defendants to answer all the Plaintiff’s post-
judgment discovery completely and thoroughly. The Court ORDERS the Defendants
to post an appeal bond of $50,000 to ensure payment of costs on appeal. 	The Court
denies without prejudice the request for a supersedes bond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62,
unless the Defendants seek a stay of execution of the judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
JOHN J. MCCONNELL, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
March 26, 2026
Case 1:24-cv-00339-JJM-PAS Document 106 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>