Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02490/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02490-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAE ASSET FUNDING, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

APPLIED FINANCIAL, LLC and APPLIED

FINANCIAL OF MICHIGAN, L.P.,

Defendants &

Counterclaimants,

 v.

BRAE ASSET FUNDING, L.P. and

GREATER BAY EQUIPMENT FINANCE, 

Counterclaim Defendants. /

No. C 05-02490 WHA

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO APPROVE

SUPERSEDEAS BOND, STAY

EXECUTION, AND ISSUE ORDER

RELEASING FUNDS

Defendants have again failed to provide any justification that would warrant a stay of

execution pending appeal. See Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). Nor

have defendants articulated a reason for their request to order the Marshals to terminate the levy

and release funds to defendants. The original judgment was entered in this case on September

15, 2006. Defendants filed a notice of appeal on October 13. The amended judgment was filed

on January 25 — not January 26, as defendants contend several times in their reply (Docket No.

105). Defendants did not move for a stay of execution until February 8, after plaintiffs had

already moved for a writ of execution on defendants’ assets. Plaintiff did not execute until

Case 3:05-cv-02490-WHA Document 132 Filed 02/21/07 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

February 9 (Feb. 20 Tiemstra Decl. ¶¶ 8–9). “Once the automatic stay provisions of FRCP

62(a) have expired, the enforcement of a judgment becomes a race between Plaintiffs (seeking

to seize assets to secure a judgment) and Defendant (posting an approved supersedeas bond to

avoid the embarrassment of public seizure). In essence, in this case Plaintiff won at least part of

the race.” Moses v. K-Mart Corp., 922 F. Supp. 600 (S.D. Fla. 1996); see also Ribbens Intern.,

S.A. de C.V. v. Transport Intern. Pool, Inc., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1141, 1144–45 (C.D. Cal. 1999). 

Defendants have waived the protection against the levy that a timely procured supersedeas bond

would have afforded. All of defendants’ requests are DENIED. Any further requests for a stay

of execution or regarding the levy will not be considered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02490-WHA Document 132 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 2