UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICAH FIALKA-FELDMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 08-14922

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY BOARD

OF TRUSTEES, GARY D. RUSSI,

MARY BETH SNYDER, and

LIONEL MATEN,

Defendants.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan, on September 7, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is presently before the Court on Defendants’ “Motion for Relief from

Order Granting Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and/or to Stay Order Granting Attorneys’

Fees Pending Outcome of Appeal,” filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

60(b) and 62 on July 7, 2010. In the motion, Defendants seek relief from this Court’s

June 23, 2010 decision, awarding attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $101,676

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and 29 U.S.C.

§ 794a. Alternatively, Defendants ask the Court to stay the attorneys’ fees award until the

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals resolves Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s decision
2

granting summary judgment to Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a response to the pending motion

on July 27, 2010.

 Defendants cite Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in support of their

request for relief from the Court’s June 23, 2010 decision. Rule 60(b)(6) provides that

“[o]n motion and just terms, [a] court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment,

order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason that justifies relief.” In their motion,

however, Defendants do not set forth any reason justifying relief from the Court’s award

of attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff.

Defendants, however, do set forth a basis for granting their request for a stay of the

attorneys’ fees award pending their appeal. As Defendants explain, if the Sixth Circuit

reverses this Court’s grant of summary judgment to Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff’s

reasonable accommodation claim brought under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Plaintiff

no longer will be a “prevailing party” entitled to attorneys’ fees. The Court granted

summary judgment to Defendants with respect to the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s

amended complaint.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides in relevant part: “If an appeal is

taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . ..” Courts have interpreted

the rule as “entitl[ing] a party who files a satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay of [a]

money judgment as a matter of right.” Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409

(6th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added) (citing Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm.

Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citing Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am. Broad.
3

Paramount Theatres, Inc., 385 U.S. 931, 87 S. Ct. 291 (1966)). The Sixth Circuit has

explained, however, “‘the Rule in no way necessarily implies that filing a bond is the only

way to obtain a stay. It speaks only to stays granted as a matter of right, it does not speak

to stays granted by the court in accordance with its discretion.’” Id. (quoting Fed.

Prescription, Serv., Inc., 636 F.2d at 759). As Plaintiff acknowledges in his response to

Defendants’ motion, in Arban the Sixth Circuit concluded that a district court, in its

discretion, may waive Rule 62’s bond requirement upon a showing of adequate resources

by the party seeking a stay of a money judgment. (Pl.’s Resp. at 4-5 (citing Arban, 345

F.3d at 409.) 

Defendants demonstrate that Oakland University possesses adequate resources to

pay the $101,676 attorneys’ fees award within a week of a decision by the court of

appeals affirming this Court. The Court therefore grants Defendants’ request for a stay

without a bond of the June 23, 2010 decision awarding attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion for relief from judgment pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) is DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion for a stay of this Court’s

June 23, 2010 award of attorneys’ fees is GRANTED and the order awarding attorneys’

fees is STAYED until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issues its mandate with respect

to Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of

Plaintiff. If the Sixth Circuit affirms this Court’s decision, Defendants shall pay the
4

attorneys’ fees award within seven (7) days of the appellate court’s mandate.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Chris E. Davis, Esq.

Robert A. Boonin, Esq.

Regan K. Dahle, Esq.