Doe et al v. Boland
Filing
137
Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying Defendant's Motion for Stay of Execution of Judgment (Related Doc # 129 ). Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 12/13/11.(P,R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
PETER LORA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEAN BOLAND,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:07 CV 2787
Judge Dan Aaron Polster
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Dean Boland’s Motion to Stay Execution Without Bond
Pending Appeal (Doc. # 129).
On October 20, 2011, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Peter Lora, et al.
Defendant timely appealed the judgment entry. (Doc. # 121). Plaintiffs cross-appealed. (Doc. #
127). Defendant’s instant motion asks the Court to stay the execution of judgment pending the
outcome of Defendant’s appeal and Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal. Defendant requests that the stay be
granted without requiring Defendant to post a supersedeas bond (i.e. an appeal bond). Plaintiffs
object and argue that Defendant should be required to post a full supersedeas bond.
There are two ways an appellant can obtain a stay. Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure entitles an appellant who files a satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay of
judgment as a matter of right. Arban v. West Publishing Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir.
2003). Alternatively, a court can grant a stay pursuant to its discretionary authority. Id. While
Rule 62(d) contemplates that a stay will be accompanied by a bond, a discretionary stay does not
always require a bond. An appellant can obtain a stay without a bond when its ability to pay the
judgment is “‘so plain that the cost of the bond would be a waste of money.’” Id. (quoting
Olympia Equip. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 786 F.2d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 1986)). A bond is
not necessary when the appellant has shown that it has adequate resources to satisfy the
judgment. Id.
The defendant in Arban had adequate resources to satisfy the judgment. Its revenue was
$2.5 billion, while the judgment was under $250,000—less than a hundredth of one percent of
the revenue. Id. at 400. Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it granted a stay without a bond. Id. at 409.
This case is a far cry from Arban. The Court acknowledges that Defendant has roots in
the community, that he has lived in Ohio his entire working life, and that his minor children live
here. The Court’s concern, however, is not that Defendant will flee the state; it is that Defendant
lacks the resources to satisfy the $300,000 judgment. Defendant has not shown otherwise.
Defendant admits he is financially unable to post the bond, and Plaintiffs show that Defendant
has incurred over $157,000 in unpaid federal and state tax liens, transferred his interest in his
home to his wife, and owes his wife money as a result of their divorce. Plaintiffs are therefore
likely to be prejudiced by a stay that does not require Defendant to post a bond.1
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Stay (Doc. # 129).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster December 13, 2011
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
1
Defendant complains about Plaintiffs’ collection efforts. His recourse lies with the court
in which Plaintiffs have filed their garnishment affidavit and order: Cuyahoga County Common
Pleas Court. (See Doc. # 129, ex. 2).
-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?