Edmo v. Corizon Incorporated et al

Filing 337

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - To the extent Defendants Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Dkt. 332 ) sought to stay execution of the judgment the motion is DENIED without prejudice. 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)

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 337 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ADREE EDMO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00151-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER

IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, et al.,
Defendants.

Defendants’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply
(Dkt. 332) sought more time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of
Execution. In making that request, though, Defendants made several references to
“pausing” Plaintiff’s collection efforts in order to promote “meaningful
mediation.” Dkt. 332 at 4. In doing so, Defendants alluded to—but did not clearly
request—staying execution of the judgment pending the outcome of mediation.
The Court issues this Order to make clear that its Memorandum Decision
and Order (Dkt. 334) issued November 23, 2022 did not resolve whether execution
of the judgment should or should not be stayed pending mediation. That is because
Defendants did not expressly request a stay, despite their references to “pausing”

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 337 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 3

Plaintiff’s collection efforts. Instead, Defendants merely requested an extension of
time to respond to the request for a writ of execution. As the Court has already
explained, Defendants were not entitled to file a response in that procedural
posture and could not effectively delay execution of the judgment simply by
expanding the briefing schedule. Dkt. 334. Nonetheless, that conclusion does not
foreclose Defendants’ path to request a stay of execution.
Thus, to the extent Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. 332) did seek to stay execution
of the judgment, that motion will be denied without prejudice. Although
Defendants explained that “pausing” collection efforts would promote “meaningful
mediation,” that statement is not, itself, sufficient to justify staying execution.
More is needed to show that a stay is justified, and that Plaintiff will be protected
absent a bond under Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ultimately, Defendants may request to stay execution of the judgment
pending the outcome of mediation. But they must do so by filing a separate motion
to be set on a separate briefing schedule.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

To the extent Defendants’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File
Response/Reply (Dkt. 332) sought to stay execution of the judgment,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 337 Filed 11/30/22 Page 3 of 3

the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED: November 30, 2022
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3