Ruth v. Eka Chemicals, Inc.
ORDER denying 70 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 8/6/2015. (geb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
STEVE G. RUTH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-165-SA-DAS
EKA CHEMICALS, INC.
ORDER DENYING STAY PENDING APPEAL
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal . The Court,
having considered the submissions of the parties, along with the pertinent authorities, finds as
In February of 2015, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment ,
and in doing so, dismissed Plaintiff’s case in its entirety. Following that order, the Clerk of Court
taxed costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,277.64. Plaintiff appealed the grant of summary
judgment and now, in the pending motion, petitions the Court to stay the judgment entered for
costs pending Plaintiff’s appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Plaintiff argues that his lack of full-time employment would make it financially
burdensome to pay costs entered by the Court. Plaintiff also argues that a stay would not unduly
burden or prejudice Defendant, and that he does not seek a stay for purposes of delay or
harassment. In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s failure to obtain a supersedeas bond
should prevent this Court from granting Plaintiff’s motion to stay.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[i]f an appeal is taken, the appellant
may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 62(d). And, as a general rule,
“losing parties in the district court can obtain a stay pending appeal only by giving a supersedeas
bond.” Enserch Corp. v. Shand Morahan & Co., Inc., 918 F.2d 462, 463-64 (5th Cir. 1990)
A potentially applicable exception to this bond requirement is where the losing party
“objectively demonstrates a present financial ability to facilely respond to a money judgment and
presents to the court a financially secure plan for maintaining the same degree of solvency during
the period of appeal.”1 Id. (quoting Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co., Inc. v. Bache Halsey
Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979)). Plaintiff has not, however, presented the Court
with any such plan to maintain solvency during appeal. Plaintiff merely states that he is currently
unemployed and that the costs are financially burdensome. Therefore, Plaintiff does not qualify
for an exception to the required supersedeas bond.
Plaintiff has neither complied with nor met an exception to Rule 62(d)’s supersedeas
bond requirement. Thus, the Motion to Stay  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this, the 6th of August, 2015.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
One other exception exists, reserved for the situation in which the prevailing party “assert[s] that the decree is
founded in error and for that reason should not be executed, but should be reversed and corrected in the appellate
tribunal.” Enserch, 918 F.2d at 464 (quoting Bronson v. La Cross & Milwaukee R.R. Co., 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 405,
410, 17 L. Ed. 616 (1863)). This exception could not apply here because the prevailing party, Eka, is not the party
appealing this Court’s judgment.
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?