Tattersalls LTD. v. Wiener
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Barry T. Moskowitz (author)
Analysis
The court considered a series of motions filed by defendant Diana L. Corteau regarding the enforcement of a prior sanctions judgment, including a motion to stay enforcement, a motion to shorten time, a motion for clarification, and a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff. The court granted the motion to stay enforcement without requiring a bond, granted the motion for clarification, and denied the motions to shorten time and for sanctions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Ms. Corteau’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment (ECF No. 216) and waiving the supersedeas bond requirement.“the Court waives the supersedeas bond requirement and GRANTS Ms. Corteau’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment (ECF No. 216).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it has inherent discretion to waive supersedeas bonds under Ninth Circuit precedent. The factual basis provided—potential issues with notice and absence of prejudice to the defendant—supports the exercise of that discretion to stay enforcement pending the reconsideration motion. |
Denying Ms. Corteau’s motion to shorten time (ECF No. 220) as moot.“The Court DENIES Ms. Corteau’s motion to shorten time (ECF No. 220) as moot.” | unsure The order does not explain why the motion is moot, but the subsequent ruling granting a specific deadline for the reply (December 3, 2020) implies that the time issue was resolved by the clarification order, rendering the motion to shorten time unnecessary. |
Granting Ms. Corteau’s motion requesting clarification (ECF No. 224) and setting a deadline for her reply.“The Court GRANTS Ms. Corteau’s motion requesting clarification (ECF No. 224). Ms. Corteau’s reply must be filed no later than December 3, 2020.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent power to control its docket to clarify procedural deadlines. This is a standard case management function. |
Denying Ms. Corteau’s motion for a cease and desist order and sanctions (ECF No. 228).“The Court DENIES Ms. Corteau’s motion for a cease and desist order and sanctions (ECF No. 228).” | agree with court The court reasoned that the stay of enforcement addressed the need for a cease and desist order and declined to impose sanctions against the defendant. This is a discretionary determination based on the court's view that the stay provided adequate relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the discretion to waive supersedeas bonds and stay enforcement. The reasoning for denying the sanctions motion is brief but logically follows from the grant of the stay. The caution regarding ex parte motions is appropriate given the context of the 'cornucopia of motions.'
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TATTERSALLS LTD., Case No.: 3:17-cv-1125-BTM- KSC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 14 GERALD WIENER, et al., 15 Defendants. [ECF Nos. 216, 220, 224, 228] 16 17 Pending before the Court are a cornucopia of motions centered around the 18 Court’s sanctions order and judgment (ECF Nos. 210, 211) and Diana L. Corteau’s 19 motions for reconsideration. (ECF No. 213.) The Court orders the following. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides for a stay of the execution of a 21 final judgment when the moving party posts a supersedeas bond. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 62(d). The Court, however, has “inherent discretionary authority in setting 23 supersedeas bonds,” Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 24 (9th Cir. 1987), and may exercise its discretion to “waive the bond requirement if it 25 sees fit.” Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 881 F.2d 788, 796-97 (9th Cir. 26 1989), vacated on reh'g on other grounds, 929 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990) (en banc). 27 In light of the potential issues surrounding Ms. Corteau’s notice of the sanctions 28 motion against her and the absence of any prejudice, harm, or delay to the 1 Defendant, the Court waives the supersedeas bond requirement and GRANTS 2 ||Ms. Corteau’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment (ECF No. 216). 3 || See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“A district court is vested with 4 ||the discretion to stay an action based on its inherent power to control its own 5 ||docket.”). Enforcement of the Court’s judgment (ECF No. 210) is stayed pending 6 || disposition of Ms. Corteau’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 213). 7 The Court DENIES Ms. Corteau’s motion to shorten time (ECF No. 220) as 8 || moot. 9 The Court GRANTS Ms. Corteau’s motion requesting clarification (ECF No. 10 ||224). Ms. Corteau’s reply must be filed no later than December 3, 2020. 11 The Court DENIES Ms. Corteau’s motion for a cease and desist order and 12 ||sanctions (ECF No. 228). This order staying enforcement of the sanctions order 13 ||)against her addresses Ms. Corteau’s request for a cease and desist order. The 14 ||Court declines to enter sanctions against the Defendant. 15 Finally, the Court cautions the parties against abusing the ex parte motion 16 ||process. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991) (district courts 17 || have inherent authority to impose sanctions for “conduct which abuses the judicial 18 || process.”). 19 || ITIS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: November 25, 2020 fs Tid Ligede 59 Hono ble Barry Ted Moskgwitz United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28