Gonzalez v. Tagged, Inc.

Filing 61

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(D) and/or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(A). (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EMMANUEL C. GONZALEZ,

Case No. 16-CV-00574-YGR

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

TAGGED, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 62(D) AND/OR FEDERAL
RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 8(A)
Re: Dkt. No. 55

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On June 14, 2016, the Court granted defendant Tagged, Inc.’s Motion for Summary

14

Judgment on 35 U.S.C. section 101 grounds on the basis of collateral estoppel in this patent

15

infringement suit brought by Plaintiff Emmanuel C. Gonzalez. (Dkt. No. 44.) The Court also

16

denied Gonzalez’s concurrent motion to stay the action. (Id.) The Court awarded $6,905.65 in

17

costs to Tagged. (Dkt. No. 52.) On August 17, 2016, the Court denied Tagged’s motion seeking

18

attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 54.)

19

Gonzalez now brings the instant motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 62(d) and/or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) to stay his burden to pay costs to

21

Tagged. (Dkt. No. 55 (“Mot.”).) Tagged has opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 56 (“Opp.”).)

22
23
24

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the record in this case, and good
cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES the motion.
I.

BACKGROUND

25

This order incorporates the facts of the case previously detailed in the Court’s prior orders.

26

(Dkt. Nos. 44 and 54.) Since the Court denied Tagged’s motion for attorney’s fees on August 17,

27

2016, the court in the New Life Venture action in the Eastern District of Texas has denied

28

Gonzalez’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment in that case. (Mot. at 1.) Gonzalez has

1
2

filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Id.)
II.

DISCUSSION

3

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a stay as a matter of right under Rule 62(d) and

4

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a). He contends that if his appeal of the Texas judgment is

5

successful, then the basis for this Court’s judgment against him would be moot, and he would file

6

a Rule 60(b)(5) motion for relief from the judgment in this Court. Defendant argues that plaintiff

7

is not entitled to a stay of his burden to pay costs pending appeal of the Texas judgment because

8

plaintiff has not filed an appeal of this Court’s judgment.

9

Defendant is correct. Plaintiff may only seek a stay under Rule 62(d) and Rule 8(a) if he
has filed an appeal from the judgment in this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) (“If an appeal is

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or

12

after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes

13

effect when the court approves the bond.”); Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) (“A party must ordinarily move

14

first in the district court for the following relief: (A) a stay of the judgment or order of a district

15

court pending appeal . . . .”). However, plaintiff has not filed a timely appeal in this Court.

16

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the pending nature of the appeal in the Texas case has no

17

effect on the finality of the unappealed judgment in this Court. See Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191,

18

199 (1932) (judgment in Reed’s favor based on res judicata effect of prior judgment against Allen

19

retained its finality, even after Allen’s appeal on the first judgment was reversed); see also Collins

20

v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 882–83 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] final judgment retains its

21

collateral estoppel effect, if any, while pending appeal[,]” and “the benefits of giving a judgment

22

preclusive effect pending appeal outweigh any risks of a later reversal of that judgment.”).

23

Accordingly, given plaintiff’s failure to appeal the judgment in this Court, he is not entitled to

24

relief under Rule 62(d) or Rule 8(a).

25

If plaintiff’s appeal of the Texas judgment succeeds, plaintiff may bring a motion under

26

Rule 60(b)(5) to vacate this Court’s judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (“On motion and just

27

terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or

28

proceeding for the following reasons: . . . it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
2

1

or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable . . . .”); see also Collins, 505 F.3d at

2

883.

3

III.

CONCLUSION

4

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

5

This Order terminates Docket Number 55.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: November 15, 2016

8
9

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3