Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02145/USCOURTS-arwd-2_04-cv-02145-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pam Huber
Plaintiff
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

PAM HUBER 

PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 04-2145

WAL-MART STORES, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

On this 15th day of May 2006, there comes on for

consideration, Defendant’s Application for Stay of Judgment Pending

Appeal and for Approval of Supersedeas Bond (Doc. 57), Plaintiff’s

Motion to Hold Wal-Mart in Contempt of Court and for an Additional

Money Judgment (Doc. 63), and Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental

Attorney’s Fee Petition (Doc. 65). For the reasons stated herein,

the Court finds Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s

Motions are DENIED.

On March 31, 2006, this Court entered a money judgment in

Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant and further ordered that

Plaintiff be reinstated to her position as Router (Doc. 55). On

April 28, 2006, Defendant filed its Notice of Appeal (Doc. 56).

Defendant requests this Court to stay enforcement of the money

judgment and the injunctive relief requiring reinstatement of

Plaintiff pending the outcome of its appeal. Defendant further

requests that this Court approve its supersedeas bond. Plaintiff

does not object to staying the enforcement of the money judgment or

Case 2:04-cv-02145-RTD Document 67 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

the amount of the supersedeas bond. However, Plaintiff contends

that she should be reinstated during the pendency of the appeal and

further requests that Defendant be held in contempt for failing to

reinstate her within ten (10) days of the Court’s injunctive order.

Further, Plaintiff requests an additional money judgment against

Defendant for violation of the order. 

In order to prove entitlement to a stay pending appeal,

Defendant must show that (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits,

(2) it will suffer irreparable injury unless the stay is granted,

(3) no substantial harm will come to other interested parties, and

(4) the stay will do no harm to the public interest. Arkansas Peace

Center v. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control, 992 F.2d 145,

147 (8 Cir. 1993). As Plaintiff does not oppose a stay of the th

money judgment and posting of the supersedeas bond, the Court

addresses these factors only as they relate to whether Plaintiff’s

reinstatement should be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Defendant is correct in that the issue that is the subject of

appeal in this case is a novel one in the Eighth Circuit.

Additionally, the Courts of Appeals that have considered the issue

are split. Accordingly, Defendant may be able to succeed on the

merits of its appeal, and the Court does not believe a stay would

harm the public interest. As for harm to either party by allowing

or disallowing the stay, the Court finds that Defendant’s offer to

post a $30,000.00 bond to compensate Plaintiff for the salary

Case 2:04-cv-02145-RTD Document 67 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

difference between her current position and the Router position

should Defendant be unsuccessful on appeal is fair and equitable

and alleviates substantial harm to either party. Accordingly,

Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED contingent upon Defendant posting

both the $75,000.00 bond and an additional $30,000.00 bond. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant’s

Application for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal and for Approval of

Supersedeas Bond (Doc. 57) is GRANTED contingent upon the posting

of $75,000.00 and $30,000.00 bonds, respectively, and enforcement

of the judgment, including reinstatement, is STAYED during the

pendency of the appeal. Plaintiff’s Motion to Hold Wal-Mart in

Contempt of Court and for an Additional Money Judgment (Doc. 63)

and Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Attorney’s Fee Petition (Doc.

65) are DENIED, but the motion for additional attorney’s fees may

be renewed following the appeal.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Robert T. Dawson 

Honorable Robert T. Dawson

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02145-RTD Document 67 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>