New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Factors in Setting Supersedeas Bond under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) — District Court Jurisdiction to Enforce Judgment After Notice of Appeal

Download PDF

From Dell, Inc. v. Advicon Computer Servs., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40881 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2008):

The Sixth Circuit has explained that this Rule "entitles a party who files a satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay of money judgment as a matter of right." Arban v. West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003). The amount of the bond, however, is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court. vAcevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 296 F.3d 13, 17 (1st Cir. 2002). "A judgment creditor's primary concern when a judgment in his favor is stayed pending appeal is that he be 'secure . . . from loss resulting from the stay of execution."' Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1154 (2d Cir. 1986) (quoting Federal Prescription Services v. American Pharmaceutical Association, 636 F.2d 755, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1980)), rev'd on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1 (1987). Therefore, "when setting supersedeas bonds courts seek to protect judgment creditors as fully as possible without irreparably injuring judgment debtors." Ibid (citations omitted). The amount of the bond should secure the judgment creditor for the amount of the judgment, accumulated interest, and costs of the action. A court has discretion to approve a bond in an amount less than the total necessary to secure those sums, but the court must consider such factors as the complexity of the collection process, the amount of time required to obtain a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal, the availability of funds to pay the judgment, whether the defendant's ability to pay the judgment is so obvious that the cost of the bond would be a waste of money, and the economic burden on the judgment debtor and the impact on its other creditors. See 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 62.03[2] (3d ed. 1997); Dillon v. Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904-05 (7th Cir. 1988).

The case also makes a valuable point about continuing District Court power following the filing of a notice of appeal in the absence of a supersedeas bond staying enforcement of judgment (factually, the plaintiff had been awarded a default judgment):

Generally speaking, "'the district court loses jurisdiction over an action once a party files a notice of appeal, and jurisdiction transfers to the appellate court.'" Dixon v. Clem, 492 F.3d 665, 679 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1993)). However, "'[a]lthough a district court may not alter or enlarge the scope of its judgment pending appeal, it does retain jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.'" City of Cookeville, Tenn. v. Upper Cumberland Elec. Membership Corp., 484 F.3d 380, 394 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting NLRB v. Cincinnati Bronze Inc., 829 F.2d 585, 588 (6th Cir. 1987)). ***[T]he Court plainly has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's motion to seize and destroy certain assets because that relief amounts to nothing more than the collection of the money judgments and enforcement of the injunctive relief ordered in those judgments. The Sixth Circuit has drawn a "crucial distinction between expansion and enforcement of judgments." Am. Town Ctr. v. Hall 83 Assocs., 912 F.2d 104, 110 (6th Cir. 1990). Since the plaintiff's motion fits into the latter category, the Court may adjudicate the request.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice