Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 158

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No. 04-cv-1160-LTB-CBS ISABELLE DerKEVORKIAN, Plaintiff, v. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a LIONBRIDGE US, INC., et al. Defendants. DEFENDANT LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S UNOPPOSED FED.R.CIV.P. 62(D) MOTION TO STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND (Certifying Compliance with D.C.Colo.L.Civ.R. 7.1A) Defendant Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. ("Lionbridge") respectfully moves the Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) for a stay of execution on the judgment pending appeal, and for approval of the supersedeas bond, a copy of which is tendered to the Court herewith as Exhibit A. Lionbridge is authorized to state that the plaintiff does not oppose this motion, as explained below. In support thereof, Lionbridge states as follows: I. Local Rule 7.1(A) Certification Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he conferred with Joel Maguire, Esq., counsel for the plaintiff, with respect to the relief sought by this motion. Counsel for plaintiff does not object to the proposed supersedeas bond, or to a stay under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) effective on the Court's approval of the bond. Accordingly, this motion is unopposed. II. The Court Should Approve the Proposed Supersedeas Bond

The proposed supersedeas bond binds Lionbridge and its surety, Travelers Insurance and Surety Company, in an amount equal to the entire judgment, including pre-judgment interest and
#1214491 v2

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 158

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 2 of 4

post-judgment interest for a period of 18 months from the filing of the notice of appeal. See Exh. A. The plaintiff does not object to the proposed supersedeas bond. Accordingly, Lionbridge respectfully requests that the Court enter an order approving the supersedeas bond. Upon entry of an order approving the bond, Lionbridge will post the original bond with the Clerk of the Court. III. Upon Approving the Bond, the Court Should Stay Execution Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) provides that "[w]hen an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay. ...The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). A stay under Rule 62(d) is automatic when a proper bond is posted. See American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co. v. American BroadcastingParamount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 (1966) (Harlan, J., in chambers) ("With respect to a case arising in the federal system it seems to be accepted that a party taking an appeal from the District Court is entitled to a stay of a money judgment as a matter of right if he posts a bond in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d)[.]"); American Bank and Trust Co. v. Bond Int'l Ltd., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29136, * 7 (N.D. Ok. 2007) (Eagan, Chief Judge) ("Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must stay its judgment when an appeal is taken and the appealing party posts a supersedeas bond approved by the court."); Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Morrison Knudsen Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30836, * 7 (D. Colo. 2007) (Boland, M.J.) ("Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rues of Civil Procedure allows an appellant to obtain an automatic stay of execution of judgment pending appeal by posting a bond."), citing and quoting Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904 - 905 (7th Cir. 1988). In this case, Lionbridge has appealed the judgment, and, if the Court approves the proposed bond, all the requirements for an automatic stay under Rule 62(d) will be met.

2
#1214491 v2

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 158

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 3 of 4

Accordingly, Lionbridge respectfully requests the Court enter an order staying any execution on the judgment pursuant to Rule 62(d). IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Lionbridge respectfully requests that the Court approve the proposed supersedeas bond (copy attached as Exhibit A), and stay any execution on the judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). A form of proposed order is submitted for the convenience of the Court1. Respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2007.

s/ Michael J. Hofmann David B. Wilson Michael J. Hofmann HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 861-7000 Facsimile: (303) 866-0200 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Lionbridge Technologies, Inc.

Because the Court previously issued a stay under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c), see Doc. No. 136, as a housekeeping matter, the attached proposed order also dissolves that stay as moot. 3
#1214491 v2

1

Case 1:04-cv-01160-LTB-CBS

Document 158

Filed 06/08/2007

Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 8th day of June, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANT LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S UNOPPOSED FED.R.CIV.P. 62(D) MOTION TO STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND (Certifying Compliance with D.C.Colo.L.Civ.R. 7.1A) with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: Joel C. Maguire [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff John Edwin Bolmer, II [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Dan S. Cross [email protected] [email protected] David Everett Leavenworth, Jr. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

s/ Jackie Delay Jackie DeLay Phone: 303-866-0650 Email: [email protected]

4
#1214491 v2