The opinion of the court was delivered by: IRENAS
Plaintiffs' sexual harassment case, brought pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq., against defendants ACPD and Madamba was tried before this court from November 27, 1995 to February 2, 1996. The jury found that the ACPD and Madamba discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her sex. The jury awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $ 575,000 against Madamba and the ACPD. The jury also awarded punitive damages against the ACPD in the amount of $ 700,000.
By order and opinion dated July 12, 1996, this court granted defendants' motion for a remittitur of the compensatory damages award to $ 175,000. On August 19, 1996, the plaintiff accepted the remittitur. By orders and opinions dated July 12, 1996 and September 16, 1996, the court awarded counsel fees and costs in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $ 516,046 and $ 70,135, respectively.
On September 18, 1996, this court entered an amended judgment. On September 27, 1996, and September 30, 1996, the ACPD and Madamba filed their Notices of Appeal, respectively. Thereafter, defendants filed the present motion for a stay of the execution of the judgment without requiring a supersedeas bond.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) provides:
When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay . . . The bond may be given at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal or of procuring the order allowing the appeal, as the case may be. The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court.
Both defendants, however, seek a stay of the judgment without giving the bond. The court holds that the ACPD does not have to post a bond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(f), which provides for a stay according to state law. Madamba also qualifies for a waiver under Rule 62(f) because he has shown good cause why he should not have to post a bond.
A. Atlantic City Police Department
The ACPD is entitled to a waiver of the supersedeas bond requirement under Rule 62(f). The Rule provides:
In any state in which a judgment is a lien upon the property of the judgment debtor and in which the judgment debtor is entitled to a stay of execution, a judgment debtor is entitled, in the District Court held therein, to such a stay as would be accorded the judgment debtor had the action been maintained in the courts of that state.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(f). Thus, the federal rule mandates two requirements: (1) that under the applicable state law, the judgment results in a lien on the judgment debtor's property,
and (2) that state law provides for a stay. The ...