Opinion
1:23-mc-00003-JDB
08-31-2023
REYNALDO UBALLE, JR., and EL TORRO INVESTMENTS LLC, Plaintiffs, v. APRIL LIEBERMAN, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STAY
J. DANIEL BREEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the August 31, 2023, motion of Defendant, April Lieberman, for a stay of the writs of execution to enforce a foreign judgment previously issued by this Court. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 32.) For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Defendant submitted an email to the Court with the subject line, in relevant part, “Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Stay,” that the Court construes as a motion for a stay. (D.E. 32) (emphasis omitted).
On August 31, 2023, Lieberman deposited $115,865.43 with this Court (D.E. 32-6) as surety to satisfy the judgment against her for $114,788.61, entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“Georgia Court”). (D.E. 1-1.) It appears, therefore, that Defendant has posted sufficient funds as a bond to be entitled to a stay awaiting adjudication of her motion to vacate the default judgment against her that is presently pending before the Georgia Court. To the extent that the deposited funds are insufficient to cover any post-judgment interest, the Court waives Defendant's noncompliance. See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. U.S. Steel Corp., No. 4:12-cv-1390, 2016 WL 1106854, at *14 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2016) (noting that the court may grant a stay on terms other than a full supersedeas bond).
For the requirements to procure a stay under Rule 62(b), see this Court's August 30, 2023, order. (D.E. 31.)
Accordingly, Lieberman's motion for a stay is GRANTED. Enforcement of the previously issued writs of execution is STAYED pending further order. The parties are DIRECTED to notify this Court within fourteen days of the disposition of Lieberman's pending motion to vacate in the Georgia Court.
A stay supported by surety sufficient to satisfy a judgment protects the interests of both parties. For the party against whom the judgment has been entered, a stay preserves the status quo and prevents them from possibly being unable to collect restitution if the judgment is reversed. Meanwhile, for the party for whom the judgment has been entered, a stay supported by appropriate funds as security ensures the judgment will not be uncollectable. See Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co., 2016 WL 1106854, at *14 (quoting Physicians Ins. Cap., LLC v. Praesidium All. Grp., LLC, No. 4:12CV1789, 2013 WL 5232817, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2013); see also Hamlin v. Charter Twp. of Flint, 181 F.R.D. 348, 350-51 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
IT IS SO ORDERED.