Fox v. Pittsburg State University

Filing 261

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 255 Motion for Stay of Proceedings to Stay Execution of the Judgment Pending Appeal and For Waiver of Supersedeas Bond. Signed by Chief District Judge Julie A Robinson on 9/13/17. (kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARTHA FOX,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-CV-2606-JAR

PITTSBURGH STATE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On October 18, 2016, judgment was entered against Defendant Pittsburgh State
University following a jury trial and verdict in the amount of $230,000.1 On November 1, 2016,
Defendant filed a Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Resolution of Post-Trial Motions and
Appeals and For Waiver of Supersedeas Bond.2 Plaintiff did not oppose a stay of execution of
the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) pending the resolution of post-trial motions and
appeals, but requested that Defendant be required to post a supersedeas bond pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 62(d).3 On April 20, 2017, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for a stay of execution
of the judgment and for waiver of supersedeas bond until the resolution of post-trial motions, but
denied without prejudice Defendant’s motion for a stay of execution during appeal.4 On June 26,
2017, the Court amended the judgment in this case to include attorneys’ fees and expenses in the

1

Doc. 197.

2

Doc. 205.

3

Doc. 213.

4

Doc. 249.

amount of $272,614.5 Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
on July 25, 2017.6
This matter is now before the Court on Defendant’s July 25, 2017 Motion for Stay of
Proceedings to Stay Execution of the Judgment Pending Appeal and For Waiver of Supersedeas
Bond (Doc. 255). In her response filed on August 8, 2017, Plaintiff states that she “does not
oppose Defendant’s motion for a stay of execution of the judgment until resolution of the appeal
or its motion for waiver of the supersedeas bond while an appeal of the judgment is taken.”7
Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion, and the Court has already determined in its
April 20, 2017 Memorandum and Order that the existence of the Kansas Tort Claims Fund
pursuant to K.S.A. § 75-6117 and the State of Kansas’s procedure for satisfying judgments
warrant not requiring a supersedeas bond in this case.8 Defendant has also submitted the
affidavit of Jeffrey A. Chanay, Chief Deputy of the Kansas Attorney General’s Office, attesting
that the State of Kansas has sufficient funds to satisfy the judgments in this case within 30 days
after the conclusion of the appellate process if the judgments are affirmed on appeal.9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant’s Motion for Stay
of Proceedings to Stay Execution of the Judgment Pending Appeal and For Waiver of
Supersedeas Bond (Doc. 255) is granted. A stay of execution is granted pending appeal, and no
supersedeas bond is required during appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 13, 2017
5

Doc. 252.

6

Doc. 253.

7

Doc. 259 at 1.

8

Doc. 249 at 3-7.

9

Doc. 256-1.

2

S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3