KLAYMAN et al v. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. et al
Filing
615
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on September 9, 2019. (lcckk1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
LARRY KLAYMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 06-670 (CKK)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(September 9, 2019)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Larry Klayman’s [609] Motion to
Stay Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal Without Bond (“Pl.’s Mot.”). In their [610]
Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal Without Bond,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs argue that Klayman has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate
that a bond is not required. The Court agrees. 1
Upon the posting of a supersedeas bond, a party may obtain a stay pending appeal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). “The purpose of the supersedeas
bond is to secure the appellee from loss resulting from the stay of execution.” Fed. Prescription
Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Because the stay benefits the
appellant and “deprives the appellee of the ultimate benefits of [the] judgment, a full supersedeas
bond should be the requirement in normal circumstances.” Id. Normal circumstances include
1
Because the issue in contention between the parties is whether the Court should stay
enforcement of the judgment pending appeal without a bond, the Court shall focus its analysis on
whether a stay should be issued without a bond, rather than on whether a stay should be issued at
all. Many of the authorities that Klayman cites address the general considerations relevant to
whether a stay for enforcement of a judgment pending appeal should be issued, but those factors
are inapplicable to whether a bond should be required for any such stay. See, e.g., Hilton v.
Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (listing “factors regulating the issuance of a stay”); Doe v.
Trump, No. 17-5267, 2017 WL 6553389, at *1 (listing factors for courts to take into account
when “considering whether to grant a stay pending appeal”).
1
those “where there is some reasonable likelihood of the judgment debtor’s inability or
unwillingness to satisfy the judgment in full upon ultimate disposition of the case.” Id. A district
court, however, may in its discretion “order partially secured or unsecured stays” in “unusual
circumstances.” Id. at 760–61. The moving party has the burden to “‘objectively demonstrate the
reasons for such a departure.’” Grand Union Co. v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass’n, 637 F.
Supp. 356, 357 (D.D.C. 1986) (quoting Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart,
Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1978)).
The Court of Appeals has emphasized three considerations when reviewing a district
court’s exercise of discretion in granting a stay without bond: (1) the damage award amount, (2)
the net worth of the moving party in relation to the damage award, and (3) the residency status of
the moving party. Fed. Prescription Serv., 636 F.2d at 761. For example, in Federal Prescription
Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Association, the net worth of the moving party was
“about 47 times the amount of the damage award,” and the moving party was “a long-term resident
of the District of Columbia” who had not indicated “any intent to leave.” Id. The Court of Appeals
viewed these factors as supporting the district court’s exercise of discretion in granting the stay
without bond. Id.; cf. Athridge v. Iglesias, 464 F. Supp. 2d 19, 24–25 (D.D.C. 2006) (granting stay
of enforcement of judgment pending appeal where defendants presented over $7 million in real
estate holdings to guarantee judgment).
No such factors are evident here, and Klayman has neither “objectively demonstrate[d] a
present financial ability to facilely respond to a money judgment” nor “presente[d] to the court a
financially secure plan for maintaining that same degree of solvency during the period of an
appeal.” Athridge, 464 F. Supp. 2d at 24 (internal quotation marks omitted). As for the damages
award and Klayman’s net worth, the total judgments in this case exceed $2.8 million, and while
2
Klayman has not indicated his net worth, he has admitted that he “simply cannot post bond for a
$2.8 million-dollar judgment.” Pl.’s Mot. at 6. This admission, and the “reasonable likelihood”
of Klayman’s “inability or unwillingness to satisfy the judgment in full upon ultimate disposition
of the case,” heavily weighs against granting a stay of enforcement of the judgment without bond.
See Fed. Prescription Serv., 636 F.2d at 760–61. Moreover, Klayman does not assert that he is a
District of Columbia resident, and in fact has not disclosed his residency.
Accordingly, Klayman has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating why the Court
should impose a stay of the enforcement of the judgment without a bond. See, e.g., Gates v. Syrian
Arab Republic, No. 06-cv-1500 (RMC), 2009 WL 10693489, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 21, 2009)
(denying motion for stay without bond because moving party did not address relevant
considerations and demonstrated “reasonable likelihood of . . . unwillingness to satisfy the
judgment in full upon ultimate disposition of the case”); Godfrey v. Iverson, No. 05-cv-2044,
2007 WL 3001426, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2007) (denying motion for stay without bond because
neither defendant was District of Columbia resident and there were no “unusual circumstances,”
even though moving party had “sufficient assets and income to satisfy the judgment”); Grand
Union Co., 637 F. Supp. at 358 (denying motion for stay without bond because moving party failed
to address all relevant considerations, despite having net worth allegedly “thousands of times
greater than the amount of the award”).
For the foregoing reasons, this Court shall DENY Plaintiff’s [609] Motion to Stay
Enforcement of Judgment Pending Appeal Without Bond.
An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: September 9, 2019
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?