Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC

Filing 488

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 485 Motion to Stay. See Order for details. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on August 11, 2017. (jch)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

WAL-MART STORES, INC.

V.

PLAINTIFF/
COUNTER-DEFENDANT
CASE NO. 5:14-CV-5262

CUKER INTERACTIVE, LLC

DEFENDANT/
COUNTER-CLAIMANT

ORDER STAYING EXECUTION ON MONEY JUDGMENT
Currently before the Court is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s (“Walmart”) Motion for Stay
of Execution on Money Judgment (Doc. 485). On July 28, 2017, the Court entered
Judgment in favor of Cuker Interactive, LLC (“Cuker”) against Walmart in the amount of
$10,197,065.00. See Doc. 484. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a), execution on that Judgment
is automatically stayed “until 14 days have passed after its entry.” Today is the fourteenth
day since Judgment was entered. Walmart has asked the Court to extend the stay of
execution through the resolution of post-judgment motions that Walmart intends to file
under Rules 50, 52(b), 59, and/or 60, and pending appeal. Rule 62(b) authorizes this
Court to stay execution of a judgment pending disposition of the aforementioned postjudgment motions “[o]n appropriate terms for the opposing party’s security,” and Rule
62(d) authorizes a stay pending appeal by supersedeas bond.
Walmart has presented the Court with the form of a supersedeas bond in the
amount of $12,000,000.00, see Doc. 485-1, but in the interest of judicial economy
Walmart asks that the Court “waive the bond until the remaining post-trial motions are
decided and a final judgment amount is set,” see Doc. 485, ¶ 4. The Court finds that

1

Walmart plainly has the ability to pay the judgment, such that a supersedeas bond is not
necessary to protect Cuker’s interest during post-judgment motion practice. See Fox v.
Pittsburg State Univ., 319 F.R.D. 342, 343 (D. Kan. 2017). The Court further finds that
the matter of whether to enter a stay pending appeal is not yet ripe for consideration.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Walmart’s Motion for Stay of Execution on
Money Judgment (Doc. 485) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
execution and other proceedings to enforce the money judgment are STAYED pending
disposition of Walmart’s post-judgment motions, and security for that stay is waived.
Walmart’s request for a stay of execution pending appeal is denied without prejudice, and
may be renewed when and if an appeal is taken.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 11th day of August, 2017.

_/s/ Timothy L. Brooks______________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2