Steven L. Lombardo v. Mercantile Resource Group, Inc., et al

Filing 80

ORDER DENYING 71 MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT; AND STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 62(h). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/1/2021. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/1/2021)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

STEVEN L. LOMBARDO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 20-cv-02153-BLF

v.
MERCANTILE RESOURCE GROUP, INC,
et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENFORCE JUDGMENT; AND
STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 62(H)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment previously entered by this

14

Court. See Mot., ECF 71. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this motion is

15

appropriate for determination without oral argument, and the July 1, 2021 hearing is VACATED.

16

The motion is DENIED.

17

When the Court entered its judgment on October 26, 2020, (ECF 64) default judgment had

18

been entered against all three Defendants. See Order, ECF 56. However, the day after Plaintiffs

19

filed this motion, the Court granted Defendant David Sanchez’s motion to vacate the default

20

judgment entered against him, finding that he had demonstrated good cause under Rule 60(b). See

21

Order Granting Mot. to Vacate, ECF 73. Plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief, and the judgment

22

requires all three Defendants to deliver certain personal property to Plaintiffs, including 82 income

23

and mortgage bonds. See Judgment 2, ECF 64. However, Plaintiffs concede that Defendant

24

Sanchez is co-owner of the bonds. See Mot. 2. Since Defendant Sanchez is no longer subject to the

25

judgment entered by this Court, the Court could not order enforcement of the judgment without

26

prejudice to Defendant Sanchez.

27
28

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(h) provides that when a court has entered final
judgment, it may upon its discretion, ‘stay enforcement of that judgment until the entering of a

1

subsequent judgment or judgments.’ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946,

2

955 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(h)). “In fashioning a stay of enforcement, a court

3

looks to general equitable principles.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 956 (quoting

4

Pereira v. Cogan, 275 B.R. 472, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). The Court finds that it would be prejudicial

5

to Defendant Sanchez to enforce the judgment and deprive him of his property without first

6

allowing him to litigate the merits of this case. Similarly, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs

7

will be prejudiced by litigating the merits of this case. Using its discretion, the Court DENIES

8

Plaintiffs’ motion and will STAY enforcement of the judgment entered on October 26, 2020, until

9

this case is fully resolved.1

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: April 1, 2021
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Defendant Sanchez incorrectly believes that Defendants Mercantile
Resource Group, Inc., and Choctaw Indian Asset Recovery Trust, of which he is a trustee, are not
subject to the judgment entered by this Court. See Opp’n ¶ 3, ECF 78. The Court’s judgment
clearly indicates that it is against “Mercantile Resource Group, Inc., and Choctaw Indian Asset
Recovery Trust dba Choctaw Management Group.” Judgment 1. Defendant Sanchez is encouraged
to correct this misconception if his fellow Defendants share it.
2