Hemminghaus v. Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for stay pending appeal and to deposit funds into the registry of court 101 is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall deposit $8,527.20 into the registry of the court and shall comply with Local Rule 67-13.04 in making that deposit. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that enforcement of the judgment taxing costs against plaintiff is STAYED pending the outcome of plaintiff's appeal. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on April 29, 2013. (MCB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
STATE OF MISSOURI, et al.,
) Case No. 4:11CV736 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
After I granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiff Nadine
Hemminghaus filed a Notice of Appeal. On April 10, 2013, costs of $8,527.20
were taxed against plaintiff. She has now moved for a stay of the judgment taxing
costs against her while her appeal is pending. Though she acknowledges that such
a stay of judgment is typically granted upon posting of a supersedeas bond, she
seeks to pay $8,527.20 into the registry of the court rather than posting a bond. In
the alternative, she seeks an order allowing her to post a bond.
Under Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an appellant may
obtain a stay by supersedeas bond once she has filed a notice of appeal. The rule
has been interpreted to permit an appeal “as a matter of right” to an appellant who
posts an adequate bond. United States v. Mansion House Ctr. Redevelopment Co.,
682 F. Supp. 446, 449 (E.D. Mo. 1988). Generally, a supersedeas bond is set in
the full amount of the judgment plus interest, costs, and damages for delay. New
Access Commc’ns LLC v. Qwest Corp., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1135, 1138 (D. Minn.
2005). The district court, however, retains discretion to require only a partial bond
or to waive the bond entirely, while still implementing a stay of the judgment
pending appeal. Id. The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to serve “as a guarantee
by the appellant that he will satisfy the judgment plus interest and costs if it is
affirmed on appeal.” Id. at 449 n.5.
I find that, in this case, plaintiff’s payment of $8,527.20 into the registry of
the court will serve the same purpose as posting a supersedeas bond. Though this
amount does not include potential damages from the delay caused by the appeal, I
am satisfied that it is a sufficient amount to protect the parties’ interests.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for stay pending appeal
and to deposit funds into registry of court [#101] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall
deposit $8,527.20 into the registry of the court and shall comply with Local Rule
67–13.04 in making that deposit.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that enforcement of the judgment taxing
costs against plaintiff is STAYED pending the outcome of plaintiff’s appeal.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 29th day of April, 2013.
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?