Opinion
Civil No. 99-808 (JRT/FLN)
April 16, 2003
Thomas Bennett Wilson, III, WILSON LAW OFFICE, Edina, MN, for plaintiff.
Terrance J. Wagener, KRASS MONROE, Bloomington, MN, for defendant.
ORDER STAYING EXECUTION OF MONEY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
Plaintiff Shirley Adzick prevailed in her insurance dispute against defendant UNUM Life Insurance Company of America. The Court directed defendant to pay plaintiff all benefits due under the policy for plaintiff's disability from January 23, 1997 to February 26, 1998 and also declared the at-issue disability policy to be in full force and effect. The Court denied defendant's post-trial motions, and defendant appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendant now seeks a stay, pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of the money judgment as well as a stay of the declaration that the policy is in full force and effect. Defendant requests that the Court waive the requirement that defendant post a supersedeas bond, or alternatively argues that a bond of $22,169.00 is adequate.
Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, where an appeal has been taken, the appellant may obtain a stay of the judgment by posting a supersedeas bond. The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court. "The general rule is for the district court to set a supersedeas bond in the full amount of the judgment plus interests, costs, and damages for delay." Metz v. United States, 130 F.R.D. 458, 459 (D. Kansas 1990). The Court, however, is authorized to "waive the bond requirement and stay the enforcement of the judgment pending appeal without a bond." Peterson v. United States, No. 99-651 2000 WL 1909806 *1 (D.Minn. Oct. 5, 2000) (citing Hurley v. Atlantic City Police Dep't, 944 F. Supp. 371, 374 (D.N.J. 1996) (collecting cases)).
The Court finds that a stay as to the money judgment is appropriate, but the Court will not waive the bond requirement here. Defendant has not made an adequate showing that the Court should deviate from the general rule in this case. However, the Court finds that a bond of $22,169 is adequate.
The Court will also stay the declaratory judgment that the policy is in full force and effect. In making the determination whether to stay a declaratory judgment, the Court must consider four factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Enterprise Leasing v. Metropolitan Airports Comm'n, 193 F.R.D. 641, 644 (D.Minn. 2000) (quotation omitted).
Although the Court does not find that the applicant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the Court also does not find that plaintiff will be prejudiced by this stay. The stay will preserve the status quo pending appeal, and will prevent placing defendant in a difficult position of acting on potential additional claims from plaintiff while this appeal is pending.
ORDER
Based on the submissions and the entire file and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant UNUM Life Insurance Company of America's motion for stay of judgment and approval of supersedeas bond [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED conditioned on the defendant's posting with the Clerk of Court a supersedeas bond in the amount of $22,169. The stay will remain in effect until further order of this Court.