Tattersalls LTD. v. Wiener

— 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-BTMKSC 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 —