Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03273/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03273-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 26:6703 IRS: Refund of Tax Penalty

---

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 CALIFORNIA

STEVEN H. KASSEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. ___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-03273 SC

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO STAY ENFORCEMENT

OF JUDGMENT PENDING

APPEAL

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 30, 2007, following a three day trial, the Court

entered judgment against Plaintiff Steven H. Kassel ("Kassel") and

in favor of Defendant, the United States of America ("Government"),

in the amount of $25,568.68 plus costs. See Docket No. 44. On the

Government's motion, the Court subsequently amended the judgment to

include post-judgment interest, which began to accrue on April 30,

2007. See Docket No. 48.

Kassel has appealed both the original Judgment and the Order

Granting Defendant's Motion to Alter Judgment. See Docket No. 51. 

Now before the Court is Kassel's Motion to Stay Enforcement of

Judgment Pending Appeal. See Docket No. 52. The Government

opposed Kassel's motion. See Docket No. 55. For the reasons set

forth herein, the Court DENIES Kassel's motion to stay judgment

Case 3:06-cv-03273-SC Document 57 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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

pending appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

Kassel seeks a stay of judgment pending appeal, but he has

neither posted a bond nor shown any basis for staying the judgment

absent a bond.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), an

appellant may obtain a stay of judgment by posting a supersedeas

bond at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 62(d). Posting the bond allows a stay as a matter of

right. See id. Although the text of Rule 62(d) only refers to

bonds, courts have interpreted the rule with some flexibility,

allowing other forms of security as may be appropriate for a given

case. See, e.g., Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d

1358, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); Int'l Telemeter Corp. v.

Hamlin Int'l Corp., 754 F.2d 1492, 1495 (9th Cir. 1985). "The

posting of a bond protects the prevailing plaintiff from the risk

of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates him for delay in

the entry of the final judgment." N.L.R.B. v. Westphal, 859 F.2d

818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988).

Kassel has not posted a bond or any other security which would

protect the Government from future nonpayment. The Court may, at

its discretion, grant a stay in the absence of a bond, after

considering a number of factors, including: 

(1) the complexity of the collection process;

(2) the amount of time required to obtain a

judgment after it is affirmed on appeal; (3)

the degree of confidence that the district

court has in the availability of funds to pay

Case 3:06-cv-03273-SC Document 57 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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

the judgment; (4) whether the defendant's

ability to pay the judgment is so plain that

the cost of a bond would be a waste of money;

and (5) whether the defendant is in such a

precarious financial situation that the

requirement to post a bond would place other

creditors of the defendant in an insecure

position.

Dillon v. City of Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, 904-05 (7th Cir. 1988)

(internal citations omitted). Kassel has not provided the Court

with information on any of these factors.

The only discernible basis Kassel suggests for granting the

stay is that the harm to the Government would be "inconsequential."

Mot. at 2. Kassel offers no support for this assertion, however. 

The Government is entitled to prompt payment of the penalty it

levied against Kassel in 2005. During the time Kassel's appeal is

pending, interest will continue to accrue, as will Kassel's legal

bills. It would be unfair to make the Government carry the risk of

Kassel becoming unable to pay while the appeal is pending. It is

this exact risk that Rule 62(d) is intended to prevent a prevailing

party from shouldering.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there is no

justification for a stay pending appeal in this matter. The Court

therefore DENIES Kassel's motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2007

 

Case 3:06-cv-03273-SC Document 57 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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 JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03273-SC Document 57 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 4