Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05459/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05459-58/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOYD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-04-05459 MMC (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER

STAYING AND ENJOINING

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT OF

COSTS PENDING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STAY

AND/OR ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF

JUDGMENT OF COSTS PENDING

APPEAL, AND ORDERING PLAINTIFFS

NOT TO ACT SO AS TO THWART ANY

FUTURE COLLECTION PROCEEDINGS

In June 2008, Defendants obtained a cost award against Plaintiffs of in excess of $120,000. 

On August 20, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment for Assignment of Rights,

Restraining Order and Turnover Order. On August 26, 2008, Defendants filed Proposed Orders of

Judgment Debtor Examination for Plaintiff and her husband, and a Motion to Enforce Judgment for

Issuance of Order Permitting Levy Upon Wages of Non-Debtor Spouse. Also on August 26, 2008,

Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application seeking to stay or enjoin enforcement of judgment pending the

hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay or Enjoin Enforcement of the Judgment Pending Appeal. On

August 26, 2008, Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ ex parte application. On August, 28, 2008,

Plaintiffs filed their motion to stay. These matters were referred to this Court for resolution. 

Plaintiffs seek a temporary stay of enforcement proceedings on the grounds that, inter alia,

the liens that Defendants have filed based on the judgment have impacted her law practice, and in a

recent case, negatively affected settlement discussions. See Boyd Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4. Defendants

acknowledge that this Court has the equitable power to issue a temporary stay. A brief stay until

Plaintiffs’ motion is resolved is warranted, during which Plaintiffs are ordered not to conceal or

otherwise divert any assets, or to act in any way that could thwart future collection proceedings. 

Case 3:04-cv-05459-MMC Document 458 Filed 09/10/08 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 stays enforcement of judgment until October 10, 2008, the date of the hearing on

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay or Enjoin Enforcement of the Judgment Pending Appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05459-MMC Document 458 Filed 09/10/08 Page 2 of 2