Opinion ID: 3036690
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Stay of Enforcement

Text: [14] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(h) provides that when a court has entered final judgment, it may upon its discretion, “stay enforcement of that judgment until the entering of a subsequent judgment or judgments.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(h). AmerisourceBergen argues that the district court erred in rejecting its 62(h) motion by conflating Rule 54(b) and Rule 62(h). While it is true that the district court has discretion to grant a stay when it has already certified final judgment,4 we disagree with AmerisourceBergen’s contention that “special circumstances” warrant a stay in this case. [15] AmerisourceBergen cannot show that failure to provide the stay will cause it to suffer greater harm than Dialysist West will face should it be denied this judgment pending resolution of AmerisourceBergen’s outstanding claims. See Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Escanaba & Lake Superior R.R. Co., 840 F.2d 546, 552 (7th Cir. 1988) (“Courts regularly require the payment of undisputed debts while the parties litigate their genuine disputes.”). Moreover, allowing AmerisourceBergen to obtain a stay of the judgment would effectively sanction its self-help tactics. If it does ultimately succeed on its Epogen claim, AmerisourceBergen will have avoided paying funds it owes Dialysist West and would unjustifiably leap-frog other creditors. See Pereira v. Cogan, 275 B.R. 472, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“In fashioning a stay of enforcement, a court looks to general equitable principles.”). The district court did not 4 See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 13. (“Under this Rule [62(h)], we assume it would be within the power of the district court to protect all parties by having the losing party deposit the amount of the judgment with the court . . . . In this way, valid considerations of economic duress and solvency . . . can be provided without preventing Rule 54(b) consideration.”); see also Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Boise Cascade Corp., 489 F. Supp. 855, 860 (N.D. Ill. 1980) (granting 62(h) motion to stay after certifying judgment against party). AMERISOURCEBERGEN v. DIALYSIST WEST 3053 abuse its discretion in denying AmerisourceBergen’s Rule 62(h) motion.5