United States District Court, D. New Jersey
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Melody Shan's
motion to stay enforcement of this Court's April 23, 2018
Opinion and and to waive the bond requirement of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 62(d). ECF No. 29. For the reasons set
forth below, Defendant Shan's motion is DENIED.
RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sabre GLBL, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) originally brought
this action in New Jersey Superior Court against Melody Shan
(“Defendant”). Defendant removed the case to this
Court and moved to compel arbitration (the
“Arbitration”). ECF No. 2. The Court granted
Defendant's motion on April 6, 2017. ECF Nos. 6-7.
Mark Whittington (the “Arbitrator”) conducted the
Arbitration between September 25 and September 27, 2017. The
Arbitrator issued an interim award on January 6, 2018, and a
final award on February 12, 2018 (the “Award”),
enjoining Defendant from competing with Plaintiff and
awarding damages totaling $1, 823, 318.00.
the interim and final awards, Plaintiff learned that just
before the Arbitration began, Defendant transferred her
equity in her family home to her husband in exchange for de
minimis consideration. According to Plaintiff, this was a
deliberate attempt to hinder its ability to collect on the
impending Award. To unwind the transfer, Plaintiff filed a
second suit in this Court against Defendant Shan and her
husband. See Complaint, Sabre v. Shan,
2:18-cv-00728-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2018), ECF No. 1. On
March 23, 2018, Defendant's husband transferred a 50%
interest in the home back to Defendant. Defendant and her
husband eventually consented to the entry of a permanent
injunction preventing them “from encumbering the
Property until such time that Defendant Shan has paid to
Sabre all amounts owed.” Permanent Injunction,
Sabre v. Shan, 2:18-cv-00728-WJM-MF (D.N.J. Aug. 29,
2018), ECF No. 21.
early 2018, Plaintiff moved this Court to confirm the Award,
while Defendant moved for vacatur. ECF Nos. 10, 11, 18, 20.
On April 23, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the cross-motions, setting aside the Arbitrator's
award of attorney's fees and thus reducing total damages
to $1, 373, 318. ECF No. 24. Defendant filed her Notice of
Appeal on May 1, 2018. ECF No. 30.
2, Defendant filed her Motion to Stay Enforcement and for
Waiver of the Supersedeas Bond Requirement under Rule 62(d)
(the “Motion”). ECF No. 29. Attached to the
Motion was a sworn declaration by Defendant outlining her
assets. Shan Decl. ¶ 1 (May 2, 2018), ECF No. 29.3.
Defendant also stipulated that she would not sell her house
or car during the pendency of the appeal. Id. ¶
2. In her Motion, Defendant proffered this stipulation as an
adequate alternative to the regular bond requirement of Rule
62(d). Def. Motion at 8, ECF No. 29. Defendant noted she
“simply does not have the assets” to obtain a
bond and the assets she does have “do not remotely
approach” the amount required. Id. at 9.
debtors that appeal a trial court's decision may move to
stay a monetary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 62(d). Under Rule 62, “[i]f an appeal is
taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas
bond.” A supersedeas bond is any form of security from
which the other party may be made whole if the appeal is
unsuccessful, whether in the form of cash, property, or
surety bond. Hilburn v. Bayonne Parking Auth., No.
07-5211, 2013 WL 1721648, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 19, 2013)
(“Hilburn II”). To be sufficient to make
the appellee whole, the “bond must normally be in a sum
sufficient to pay the judgment and costs, interest, and
damages for delay.” Id. Subject to certain
exceptions not relevant here, appellants are entitled to a
stay once the court approves the bond. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 62(d).
courts “have discretion under Rule 62(d) to waive the
bond requirement in whole or in part.” United
States ex rel. Doe v. Heart Sol. PC, No. CV143644SRCCLW,
2017 WL 2709561, at *1 (D.N.J. June 23, 2017). However, such
discretion should only be exercised in exceptional
circumstances and where alternative means of securing the
judgment exist. Hilburn v. New Jersey Dep't of
Corr., Civ. No. 7-6064, 2012 WL 3133890, at *29 (D.N.J.
July 31, 2012) (“Hilburn I”).
determine whether extraordinary circumstances exist, courts
in this district generally consider the following factors
(the “Dillon factors”):
1. The complexity of the collection process;
2. The amount of time required to obtain a judgment after it