Edmo v. Corizon Incorporated et al

Filing 334

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Defendants Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Dkt. 332 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ADREE EDMO,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00151-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response. Dkt. 332. For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the
motion.
BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs. Dkt. 323. On October 28, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal of
the Attorneys’ Fees Award. Dkt. 324. On November 2, 2022, the Court issued an
Abstract of Judgment. Dkt. 325. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Issuance of a Writ of Execution. Dkt. 326. Because Plaintiff’s filing was labeled a
“motion,” CM/ECF automatically generated a response deadline twenty-one days
out: November 23, 2022.
On November 22, 2022, one day before the automatically-generated
response deadline expired, the Clerk of Court issued a Writ of Execution. Dkt. 330.
The next day, Defendants filed this Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Response. Dkt. 332.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 62(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, execution on a
judgment is automatically stayed for 30 days after its entry unless the court orders
otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). In addition to the automatic stay, “[a]t any time
after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other
security.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b).
After the automatic stay expires, if execution is not otherwise stayed, Rule
70(d) provides that “[o]n application by a party who obtains a judgment or order
for possession, the clerk must issue a writ of execution or assistance.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 70(d).
The Court’s electronic filing system, CM/ECF, automatically generates
response deadlines when motions are filed. However, Idaho Local District Rule

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

7.1(a)(6) expressly states: “The time periods specified herein and automatically
generated by CM/ECF for service do not supersede, alter or amend any otherwise
applicable Federal or Local Rule or Order of the Court specifying a different time
period for service or method of computing time.”
ANALYSIS
A.

Defendants were not entitled to respond to Plaintiff’s application for a
writ of execution prior to issuance of the writ.
Defendants object to the Court’s November 22 Writ of Execution because “it

was issued prematurely, and such is unduly prejudicial to the parties because it
violates their due process and right to be heard.” They base this assertion on a
notice, automatically generated by CM/ECF, indicating that responses to Plaintiff’s
request for a writ of execution were due November 23, 2022.
But under the federal rules, Defendants were not entitled to respond to
Plaintiff’s request for a writ of execution before issuance of the writ. This Court’s
order awarding attorneys’ fees was issued on September 30, 2022. Under Rule
62(a), execution was automatically stayed for thirty days. On November 2, 2022,
after that automatic stay had expired, Plaintiff asked the Court to issue a writ of
execution. Although that request was labeled a “motion” in the electronic filing
system, it was simply the Rule 70(d) application for a writ of execution. Thus,
under the federal rules, the Clerk of Court was to issue the writ of execution

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

without giving Defendants an opportunity to respond.
Local Rule 7.1(a)(6) is clear that the federal rule directing issuance of a writ
of execution “on application by a party who obtains a judgment” is not superseded
by CM/ECF’s automatically-generated notice stating that responses were due by
November 23, 2022.
In sum, despite the inaccurate automatically-generated response deadline,
Defendants were not entitled to respond to Plaintiff’s request for a writ of
execution. Rule 62(b) permits defendants to obtain a stay by posting bond but does
not otherwise permit them to delay execution of a valid judgment beyond the
automatic 30-day stay.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File

Response/Reply (Dkt. 332) is DENIED.
DATED: November 23, 2022

�D-zt=W�
B. Lynn Winmill

U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4