Bird v. West Valley City et al

Filing 207

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 196 Motion to Stay Enforcement of Costs Award. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 7/22/2019. (jwt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
KAREN BIRD, an individual,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STAY
ENFORCEMENT OF COSTS
AWARD (ECF NO. 196)

Plaintiff,
v.

WEST VALLEY CITY, a political subdivision of
the State of Utah, and KELLY DAVIS, in his
Civil No. 2:12-cv-00903
official and individual capacities,
Defendants.

Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse

Before the Court is Plaintiff Karen Bird’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Costs
Award (ECF No. 196). Ms. Bird asks the Court to stay the $4,352.86 award of costs
pending Ms. Bird’s appeal. (Id.) Defendants West Valley City and Kelly Davis oppose
the Motion, arguing that a stay of the cost award is without the posting of a bond is
inappropriate, but that Ms. Bird can stay enforcement of the award by posting a bond
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). (ECF No. 204.) In reply, Ms. Bird asks the Court to
either stay the case as initially requested, or alternatively, “stay the collection of costs by
bond pending appeal, pursuant to Rule 62(b).” (ECF No. 206).
The Court DENIES Ms. Bird’s request to stay the award of costs pending her
appeal to the Tenth Circuit without the posting of a bond. The fact that Ms. Bird is
appealing her case does not entitle her to a stay of the cost award. See Friends of
Thayne, LLC v. Tuhaye Homeowners Ass’n, No. 2:14-CV-00901, 2018 WL 3370649, at
*1 (D. Utah July 10, 2018) (unpublished) (“ ‘An appeal by the loser does not eliminate

1

the winner’s entitlement to immediate payment, although it does create the opportunity
to obtain a stay by posting a supersedeas bond.’ ” (quoting BASF Corp. v. Old World
Trading Co., 979 F.2d 615, 616 (7th Cir. 1992))). Further, Ms. Bird has not provided
any reason why the Court should depart from the usual procedure of requiring a bond to
stay an award of costs pending appeal.
However, the Court GRANTS Ms. Bird’s request to stay enforcement of the cost
award if she posts a bond pursuant to Rule 62(b). Federal Rule of Procedure 62(b)
provides the appropriate mechanism for staying enforcement of a costs award during
the pendency of an appeal:
At any time after judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing
a bond or other security. The stay takes effect when the court approves the
bond or other security and remains in effect for the time specified in the
bond or other security.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Accordingly, to obtain a stay of the cost award, Ms. Bird must
post a bond in the amount of $4,352.86. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) and this
Order, enforcement of the costs award is stayed immediately. However, the stay will be
automatically dissolved if Ms. Bird does not post a supersedeas bond in the amount of
$4,352.86 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. The stay will remain in
effect—provided the bond is posted—until the appeals process has concluded.
DATED this 22nd day of July, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
EVELYN J. FURSE
United States Magistrate Judge

2