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

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Court’s Inherent Power to Police the Conduct of Litigants and Attorneys Extends to Persons Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law Before Them

(1) Inherent Power Sanctions — Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Strategic Silence As Bad Faith — Failure to Advise Court of Absence of Diversity Jurisdiction for 15 Months for Strategic Reasons, Only “Pull[ing] Out The Diversity-Destroying Card” After Losing = “A Textbook Example of Bad Faith” — (2) Under Goodyear, The Court’s Fundamental Job Is to Decide Whether Fees Would Have Been Incurred Absent the Sanctioned Conduct — (3) Appellate Review: While Sanctions Orders Are Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion, A Finding of Bad Faith Is Reviewed for Clear Error — (4) When There Are Two Permissible Views of The Evidence, The Factfinder’s Choice Between Them Cannot Be Clearly Erroneous — (5) “A District Court Is Not Required To Consider Irrelevant Evidence” — (Good Quotes)

Criminal Spoliation Can Be A Due Process Violation — Defendant Must Show That (1) The Evidence Had Exculpatory Value Before It Was Destroyed, (2) Defendant Is Unable to Obtain Comparable Evidence by Reasonable Means, and (3) Bad Faith Failure to Preserve

1) Rule 11 Sanctions: “No First Amendment Exception to a Rule 11 Violation” — “[T]he First Amendment Covers Novel, Nonfrivolous Arguments, But Many Frivolous Arguments Are Also Novel” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous To Continue To Make Rejected Novel Arguments; (2) FRAP 38 Sanctions: District Court In Best Position to Set Sanctions, Attorney’s Fees and Costs

3 Prerequisites for Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions in Second Circuit: (1) Bad Faith, (2) Conduct That Is Entirely Without Color [Thus, An Ill-Motivated Colorable Position Appears to Be Protected in the Second Circuit], and (3) Improper Purpose— “To Gain A Strategic Advantage” Is An Improper Purpose — Due Process Satisfied by Opponent’s Motion and Multiple Court Conferences, After Which Target Was Allowed to Submit Additional Letters

Inherent Power Sanctions — Untimeliness as Laches — Laches Properly Applied to Deny Sanctions Motion — Note Waived Defenses to Laches

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Substantial Justification or Harmless Error (Ninth Circuit Factors) — Erie: When State Supreme Court Has Not Squarely Addressed an Issue, Circuit Must Predict How It Would Rule, Using Intermediate Appellate Decisions, Decisions from Other Jurisdictions, Statutes, Treatises And Restatements for Guidance

(1) Appellate Review of Inherent Power Sanctions (7th Circuit): Factual Findings Reviewed for Clear Error, Choice of Sanction for Abuse of Discretion — 4-Element Test for Reversal; (2) Sanctions and Class Actions: Monetary Sanctions Properly Imposed on Defendants for Improper Communications with Class Members (Represented Parties) — “[I]f The Class And The Class Opponent Are Involved In An Ongoing Business Relationship, Communications From The Class Opponent To The Class May Be Coercive” (Good Quote); (3) Monetary Sanctions under Goodyear v. Haeger: If Same Fact-Gathering Would Have Been Conducted Absent The Misconduct, No But-For Causation — But Only “Rough Justice” Required, “Not Accountant-Like Precision” (Good Quote) — Once Misconduct Is Clear, Time Spent Ferreting It Out Compensable under Goodyear; (4) Goodyear Did Not Overrule Long-Standing Rule That Courts May Impose Modest Civil Monetary Sanctions to Curb Litigation Abuse; (5) Appellate Jurisdiction Lacking Where Sanctioned Attorney Fails to File Notice of Appeal and Lawyer’s Intent to Appeal Not Apparent from Client’s Notice; (5) Rule 11 Improper Purpose — Party May Have Many Purposes for Pursuing Claim — As Long As Claim Is Supported by Good Faith Belief in the Merits, “A Parallel Reason Does Not Violate Rule 11” — To Deny A Motion for Sanctions, The District Court Need Not Address Every Argument: “Arguments Clearly Without Merit Can, And For The Sake Of Judicial Economy Should, Be Passed Over In Silence” (Good Quote); Non-Monetary Sanction on Counsel: Complete Twice The Required Amount Of Professional Responsibility Hours For Her Next Continuing Legal Education Cycle Imposed By The State Bar

(1) Spoliation: Sanctions Are Warranted Only If the Movant Establishes That A Reasonable Trier of Fact Could Find That The Destroyed Evidence Would Support A Claim Or Defense — § 1927 Sanctions: “Courts Often Refuse to Award Sanctions When Both Parties Contributed to the Waste of Judicial Resources” (Good Quote)

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