Hardwick v. Clarke

1 Citing case

  1. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Torchia

    1:15-cv-3904-WSD (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2017)

    To the contrary, courts have held that "[s]tays issued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) clearly do not have retroactive effect." Hardwick v. Clarke, No. CIV. S-06-672 LKK, 2010 WL 5437196, at *3 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2010); see also Ribbens Intern., S.A. de C.V.v. Transp. Intern. Pool, Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1144 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ("The absence of any reference to retroactive extinguishment of pre-existing execution efforts in Rule 62(d), in the context of this relatively detailed procedural scheme, further supports the conclusion that no such effect was intended."); Johns v. Rozet, 826 F. Supp. 565, 568 (D.D.C. 1993) ("any stay granted at this time would not have retroactive effect upon garnishment proceedings commenced prior to the stay."); Moore's Federal Practice ยง 62.03 (in the context of a stay issued under Fed. Rule Civ. P 62(d), "any execution had on the judgment before the stay becomes effective is not automatically set aside or rendered void even after the stay becomes effective").