K.J.P. v. San Diego, County of

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 2, 2022
• Docket: 3:15-cv-02692
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 K.J.P., a minor, and K.P.P., a minor, Case No.: 3:15-cv-02692-H-MDD 13 individually, by and through their mother, 14 LOAN THI MINH NGUYEN, who also ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S sues individually and as successor in MOTION TO WAIVE 15 interest to her now deceased husband, REQUIREMENT OF BOND AND 16 Lucky Phounsy, STAY ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT PENDING POST- 17 Plaintiffs, TRIAL MOTIONS 18 v. [Doc. No. 547.] 19 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and

RICHARD FISCHER, 20 Defendants. 21 On April 8, 2022, Defendants County of San Diego and Richard Fischer filed an ex 22 parte motion to waive requirement of bond and stay enforcement of judgment pending 23 post-trial motions. (Doc. No. 547.) On April 11, 2022, the Court issued a scheduling order 24 on Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 548.) On April 19, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition 25 to Defendants’ motion. (Doc. No. 558.) For the following reasons, the Court grants 26 Defendants’ motion to waive requirement of bond and stay enforcement of judgment 27 pending resolution of post-trial motions. 28 1 Background 2 On August 23, 2021, the Court held a jury trial on this case. (Doc. No. 342.) On 3 September 3, 2021, the trial ended when the jurors were unable to reach a verdict. (Doc. 4 No. 363.) On March 2, 2022, the Court held a retrial on this case. (Doc. No. 495.) 5 Following the retrial, on March 16, 2022, the jury rendered a unanimous verdict in favor 6 of Plaintiffs on all causes of action, awarding Plaintiffs a total of $85 million in damages. 7 (Doc. Nos. 526, 532.) The Court entered the judgment on March 17, 2022. (Doc. No. 8 533.) 9 On April 14, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal 10 Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). (Doc. Nos. 551, 552.) A hearing on Defendants’ 12 post-trial motions is currently scheduled before this Court for Monday, June 13, 2022 at 13 10:30 a.m. (Doc. No. 554 at 2.) In light of the pending post-trial motions, Defendants 14 filed the present ex parte motion requesting the Court stay enforcement of the judgment 15 pending resolution of the post-trial motions and waive the bond requirement pursuant to 16 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). (Doc. No. 547.) 17 Discussion 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) provides that “[a]t any tie after judgment is 19 entered, a part may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. The stay takes 20 effect when the court approves the bond or other security and remains in effect for the 21 time specified in the bond or other security.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). “[T]he district court 22 has broad discretionary power to waive the bond requirement if it sees fit.” Townsend v. 23 Holman Consulting Corp., 881 F.2d 788, 796–97 (9th Cir. 1989). 24 When determining whether to waive the supersedeas bond requirement, courts 25 consider several factors, including: 26 (1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time requirement to obtain a judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3) the degree of confidence that 27 the district court has in the availability of funds to pay the judgment; (4) whether 28 the defendant’s ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of a bond would 1 be waste of money; and (5) whether the defendant is in such a precarious financial 7 situation that the requirement to post a bond would place other creditors of the defendant in a insecure position. 3 Dillon v. Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904—05 (7th Cir. 1988); see also Kranson v. Fed. 4 Express Corp., No. 11-cv-5846, 2013 WL 6872495, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2013) 5 (“Courts in the Ninth Circuit regularly use the Dillon factors in determining whether to 6 || waive the bond requirement.”). 7 Defendants have met their burden to show that a waiver of the Rule 62(b) bond 8 requirement is warranted. Defendants submitted a declaration by the County’s Auditor ? and Controller, representing that the County “has the highest possible financial rating 10 || with three of the major crediting agencies,” that “[t]he County’s operating budget for 1] |) 9922-2013 is $7.23 billion dollars,” and that the County has “sufficient funds” to cover 12 the judgment $85 million judgment in this case. (Doc. No. 547-2 49 4-6.) Defendants 13 || also submitted a declaration by the Chief of the Administrative Services Division for the 14 || Office of the San Diego County Counsel representing that she is “familiar with the County’s financial situation” and “not aware of a single instance where the County has 16 || defaulted on a court judgment.” (Doc. No. 547-3 [| 4-5.) The Court has a high degree of confidence that the County has the funds available to pay the judgment and that the cost 18 || of the bond would be a waste of money. Accordingly, the Court grants the County’s 19 || motion to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal resolution of the post-trial 20 motions without posting a supersedeas bond. 21 Conclusion 22 The Court grants Defendant’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment pending 23 || the resolution of the post-trial motions and waives the bond requirement under Federal 24 Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED 26 || DATED: May 2, 2022 | | | 27 58 MARILYN LYHUFF, District e UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT