Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-95/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 The order regarding plaintiff Alvarado references “appeals,” while the order regarding plaintiff

Boswell does not.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-0098 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE WRITS OF

EXECUTION

Defendant has filed a motion to strike two writs of execution served by plaintiffs on Bank of

America on April 18, 2008. Nearly a year ago, the Court issued orders staying execution of the

Alvarado and Boswell judgments pending the disposition of post-trial orders and appeals, and requiring

defendant to post a bond.1 Defendant posted bonds on March 15, 2007 and June 7, 2007. After the

resolution of a number of post-trial orders, on April 16, 2008, defendant filed notices of appeal

regarding both Alvarado and Boswell.

The Court GRANTS defendant’s motion and STRIKES the writs of execution. (Docket No.

1073). Plaintiffs are ordered to immediately return the writs of execution to the Clerk of Court for

safekeeping pending resolution of this matter as described below. Plaintiffs suggest that the Court’s

earlier orders staying the execution of the judgments are no longer in force because they were issued

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b), which relates to a stay of execution of a judgment

pending resolution of post-trial motions. Plaintiffs assert that defendant is required to file new motions

to stay the execution of the judgments pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d). 

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1079 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The Court finds that the appropriate course is to preserve the status quo staying execution of the

judgments to allow full briefing on a Rule 62(d) motion. Defendant shall file such a motion no later

than May 1, 2008, plaintiffs shall file an opposition by May 9, 2008, and defendant may file a reply,

if any, by May 14, 2008. At that time, the Court will take the matter under submission and will issue

an order shortly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1079 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2