Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-cv-00732-WYD-CBS.
May 25, 2006
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Renewed Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment, Attorney Fees and Costs filed March 13, 2006. A response in opposition to the motion was filed March 21, 2006, and a reply was filed March 28, 2006. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is denied as moot in part and denied without prejudice in part.
First, the request to stay attorney fees is denied as moot. I previously stayed proceedings regarding attorney fees by Order filed February 22, 2006. As to the request to stay judgment and costs, I note that this is not actually a "renewed" motion but a new request. This portion of the motion is denied.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff's counsel indicated he would not oppose a stay if the State agreed to indemnify Plaintiff and if the State would provide assurances to Plaintiff's counsel about same. Defendant indicates that the State did agree to indemnify Plaintiff, and that a stay should be granted. In response, Plaintiff asserts that the issue is not whether he can get assurances from the state about indemnification; instead, a supersedeas bond is required pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 62(d) and Defendant has offered no factual or legal justification for relief from that rule. Plaintiff states, however, that he would be satisfied if an authorized state official would provide an affidavit stating that the state will indemnify Plaintiff. In reply, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's request for an affidavit is unreasonable given counsel's assurances as an officer of the court that the state has agreed to indemnify Plaintiff.
I deny the motion to stay execution of the judgment and costs. I must follow the law, not defense counsel's assertion that Plaintiff's counsel should be satisfied with the states's assurances about indemnification. It is undisputed that Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the posting of a supersedeas bond to stay the judgment. Defendant may renew his motion if he decides to post a supersedeas bond, of it he reaches agreement with Plaintiff's counsel as to some other mechanism which will satisfy counsel as to the issue of indemnification.
Rule 62(e), cited by Defendant in his motion, is not applicable as it applies only to the United States or an officer or agency thereof or by direction of any department of the Government of the United States. Defendant was a state trooper for the State of Colorado.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Defendant's Renewed Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment, Attorney Fees and Costs filed March 13, 2006 is DENIED AS MOOT as to the request to stay attorney fees and DENIED as to the remainder of the motion.