Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00574/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00574-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EMMANUEL C. GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TAGGED, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 16-CV-00574-YGR 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 62(D) AND/OR FEDERAL 

RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 8(A)

Re: Dkt. No. 55 

On June 14, 2016, the Court granted defendant Tagged, Inc.’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment on 35 U.S.C. section 101 grounds on the basis of collateral estoppel in this patent 

infringement suit brought by Plaintiff Emmanuel C. Gonzalez. (Dkt. No. 44.) The Court also 

denied Gonzalez’s concurrent motion to stay the action. (Id.) The Court awarded $6,905.65 in 

costs to Tagged. (Dkt. No. 52.) On August 17, 2016, the Court denied Tagged’s motion seeking 

attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No. 54.) 

Gonzalez now brings the instant motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 62(d) and/or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a) to stay his burden to pay costs to 

Tagged. (Dkt. No. 55 (“Mot.”).) Tagged has opposed the motion. (Dkt. No. 56 (“Opp.”).) 

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the record in this case, and good 

cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

 This order incorporates the facts of the case previously detailed in the Court’s prior orders. 

(Dkt. Nos. 44 and 54.) Since the Court denied Tagged’s motion for attorney’s fees on August 17, 

2016, the court in the New Life Venture action in the Eastern District of Texas has denied 

Gonzalez’s motion for reconsideration of the judgment in that case. (Mot. at 1.) Gonzalez has 

Case 4:16-cv-00574-YGR Document 61 Filed 11/15/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to a stay as a matter of right under Rule 62(d) and 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a). He contends that if his appeal of the Texas judgment is 

successful, then the basis for this Court’s judgment against him would be moot, and he would file 

a Rule 60(b)(5) motion for relief from the judgment in this Court. Defendant argues that plaintiff 

is not entitled to a stay of his burden to pay costs pending appeal of the Texas judgment because 

plaintiff has not filed an appeal of this Court’s judgment. 

Defendant is correct. Plaintiff may only seek a stay under Rule 62(d) and Rule 8(a) if he 

has filed an appeal from the judgment in this Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) (“If an appeal is 

taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or 

after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes 

effect when the court approves the bond.”); Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) (“A party must ordinarily move 

first in the district court for the following relief: (A) a stay of the judgment or order of a district 

court pending appeal . . . .”). However, plaintiff has not filed a timely appeal in this Court. 

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the pending nature of the appeal in the Texas case has no 

effect on the finality of the unappealed judgment in this Court. See Reed v. Allen, 286 U.S. 191, 

199 (1932) (judgment in Reed’s favor based on res judicata effect of prior judgment against Allen 

retained its finality, even after Allen’s appeal on the first judgment was reversed); see also Collins 

v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 505 F.3d 874, 882–83 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] final judgment retains its 

collateral estoppel effect, if any, while pending appeal[,]” and “the benefits of giving a judgment 

preclusive effect pending appeal outweigh any risks of a later reversal of that judgment.”). 

Accordingly, given plaintiff’s failure to appeal the judgment in this Court, he is not entitled to 

relief under Rule 62(d) or Rule 8(a). 

If plaintiff’s appeal of the Texas judgment succeeds, plaintiff may bring a motion under 

Rule 60(b)(5) to vacate this Court’s judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) (“On motion and just 

terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or 

proceeding for the following reasons: . . . it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed 

Case 4:16-cv-00574-YGR Document 61 Filed 11/15/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable . . . .”); see also Collins, 505 F.3d at 

883. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 55. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 15, 2016 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-00574-YGR Document 61 Filed 11/15/16 Page 3 of 3