Reed v. Larson

Filing 163

ORDER GRANTING, temporarily, 150 Wexfords First Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment pending further Order of this Court. Wexford shall file a short brief outlining the appropriate terms for bond or other security by August 29, 2023. Plaintiff shall file a written response by September 12, 2023. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/16/2023. (jsy)

Case 3:18-cv-01182-JPG Document 163 Filed 08/16/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #3620

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RECO REED, B18431,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
) Case No. 18-cv-01182-JPG
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc.’s motion to
stay the execution of judgment and payment of fees and costs pending the post-trial motions and appeal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(A).
(Doc. 150). As explained herein, the motion to stay shall be granted, temporarily, until further Order
of the Court.
Background
On April 6, 2023, a jury returned a verdict against Wexford in the amount of $250,000 in
compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. (Doc. 131). Judgment was entered on
April 10, 2023. (Doc. 135). Plaintiff Reco Reed filed a motion for attorney fees (Doc. 142) on
April 21, 2023 and a motion for pre- and post-judgment interest (Doc. 144) on April 24, 2023. Both
motions remain pending.
Wexford’s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment
Wexford filed the instant motion on May 8, 2023. (Doc. 150). On the same date, Wexford
filed a combined renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law / motion for new trial or, in the
alternative, a request for remittitur. (Docs. 148, 149). In the instant motion, Wexford asks the Court
to stay execution of judgment and payment of fees and costs pending resolution of Wexford’s posttrial motions and final appellate resolution without requiring security. (Doc. 150). Wexford points out

Case 3:18-cv-01182-JPG Document 163 Filed 08/16/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #3621

that neither Rule 62(d) nor Appellate Rule 8(a) actually requires a party to file a bond or other form of
security when seeking a stay or execution of judgment pending appeal; the district court may exercise
its discretion when making this decision. (Doc. 150, p. 2) (citing Lightfoot v. Walker, 797 F.2d 505,
506 (7th Cir. 1986)). And, if it is satisfied that the expenditure necessary to acquire a bond is not
necessary to protect the plaintiff, the district court need not require a bond or other form of security.
Id. (citing Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 799 F.2d 265, 281 (7th Cir. 1986) (waiving
requirement of bond pending appeal where the appellant was a solvent public utility with a net worth
in excess of the judgment)). Wexford asserts that its solvency and meritorious arguments in the
pending post-trial motions support its request for a stay of the execution of judgment without bond or
other security. (Doc. 151, pp. 2-3). But, if requested by the Court, Wexford will offer “appropriate
terms” for security. (Id. at 3).
Plaintiff’s Response
Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 155). He argues that Wexford basically seeks a stay
without “putting up funds to ‘compensate[] the judgment creditor for the delay in execution and
protect[] against the risk of the judgment being uncollectible after the completion of the appeal.”
12 Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 62.03[3][a] (2022). Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the instant
motion without first requiring Wexford to file a bond or other form of security sufficient to satisfy the
jury award, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney fees. (Doc. 155, p. 2).
Discussion
A stay of proceedings to enforce a judgment is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
62 and provides, in pertinent part:
At any time after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other
security. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or other security and remains
in effect for the time specified in the bond or other security.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 62(b). A stay of execution of a money judgment is routinely granted once the Court
is confident that the security given is sufficient to “compensate[] the judgment creditor for the delay in

Case 3:18-cv-01182-JPG Document 163 Filed 08/16/23 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #3622

execution and protect[] against the risk of the judgment being uncollectible after the completion of the
appeal.” 12 Moore’s Federal Practice—Civil § 62.03[3][a] (2022).
Here, the Court finds that a bond or other form of security may be necessary to compensate the
plaintiff for the delay in execution of the judgment and to protect him against the risk of the judgment
being uncollectible. By the deadlines set forth in the below disposition, the parties shall file a short
brief outlining the terms of a bond or other security necessary to protect the plaintiff’s interests pending
a decision on the post-judgment motions and any ensuing appeal.
Disposition
Wexford’s First Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment is GRANTED, temporarily, pending
further Order of this Court. Wexford shall file a short brief outlining the appropriate terms for bond
or other security on or before August 29, 2023. Plaintiff shall file a written response on or before
September 12, 2023. The Court will then enter an Order setting the appropriate amount and/or terms
of the bond or other security, if any, necessary to protect the plaintiff’s interest during the postjudgment proceedings and appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 16, 2023
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge