Schaefer v. Peralta, et al.
Filing
181
ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS ORDERED that the Parish's motion to enforce the award of costs (R. Doc. 179 ) isGRANTED, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Barry W Ashe on 3/20/2020. (am)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHARON SCHAEFER
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 16-17784
DAVID PERALTA, et al.
SECTION M (3)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion by defendant St. Bernard Parish Government (the “Parish”)1
to enforce the Clerk of Court’s December 31, 2019 award of $5,463.80 in costs.2 The Parish
argues that Schaefer should be required to pay the costs immediately because, although Schaefer
has appealed this Court’s summary judgment in favor of the Parish, she has not contested the
award of costs and has not moved to stay the judgment.3 Schaefer responds in opposition
arguing that the Court should refuse to consider the Parish’s motion because it does not cite
binding or sufficiently persuasive authority, and that she should not be forced to pay the costs
until her appeal is complete.4 Having considered the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the
applicable law, the Court grant the Parish’s motion.
Pursuant to Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party seeking to stay the
execution of a judgment pending appeal may post a bond or other security to secure the payment
of the judgment to the judgment creditor. “It is generally accepted that ‘[i]n the absence of a stay
obtained in accordance with Rule 62(d), the pendency of an appeal does not prevent the
judgment creditor from acting to enforce the judgment.’”
Folse v. Richard Wolf Med.
Instruments Corp., 1998 WL 473941, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 1998) (quoting 11 CHARLES
1
R. Doc. 179.
R. Doc. 177.
3
R. Doc. 179-1 at 2-3.
4
R. Doc. 180 at 1-2.
2
ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE §
2905 (2d ed.1995), and citing BASF Corp. v. Old World Trading Co., 979 F.2d 615, 616 (7th Cir.
1992) (“An appeal by the loser does not eliminate the winner’s entitlement to immediate
payment, although it does create the opportunity to obtain a stay by posting a supersedeas
bond.”)). “Costs taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are properly included in the supersedeas bond.”
Tricon Energy, Ltd. v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd., 2012 WL 527965, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2012)
(citing Norton v. Canadian Am. Tank Lines, 2009 WL 3172105, at *1 (W.D. Ky. Sept. 29, 2009)
(“Typically, a bond would include costs.”); S.E.C. v. O’Hagan, 901 F. Supp. 1476, 1480 (D.
Minn. 1995) (“Generally, the amount of the bond should include the principal amount of the
judgment, plus costs ....”). Schaefer has not obtained a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of
the judgment, including the award of costs, pending appeal. Thus, the Parish is free to pursue
appropriate measures to enforce the award of costs.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above,
IT IS ORDERED that the Parish’s motion to enforce the award of costs (R. Doc. 179) is
GRANTED.
Payment of the costs awarded in the judgment appealed is due immediately
because she has not posted a supersedeas bond, and the Parish may seek to enforce same.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of March, 2020.
________________________________
BARRY W. ASHE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?