Top Brand LLC v. Cozy Comfort Company, LLC, 2:21-cv-00597

Plaintiffs Top Brand, LLC and affiliates sued Cozy Comfort Company, LLC and others for patent and trademark infringement, as well as Illinois unfair competition, but a jury found in favor of Defendants after a three-week trial, awarding them over $21 million in damages.
Defendants also prevailed on counterclaims regarding the same intellectual property, and the court ultimately entered a Second Amended Judgment reflecting additional prejudgment and postjudgment interest, for a total judgment of $21,440,390.10.
Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit and, shortly after, moved to stay enforcement of the monetary judgment pending appeal, asking to post only a $1 million supersedeas bond, arguing inability to pay more without bankruptcy.
Defendants sought certification of the Arizona judgment to the Central District of California to pursue assets located there and requested post-judgment discovery to determine Plaintiffs’ financial condition and prospects for satisfaction of the judgment.
The court consolidated argument and briefing on the stay, the bond amount, post-judgment discovery, and certification of the judgment for registration in California.
The court addressed the applicable legal standards for staying enforcement and for post-judgment discovery, applying the five-factor Dillon test regarding bond reduction requests and the procedures for discovery and registration of judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay enforcement and reduce bond under FRCP 62(b)	Plaintiffs can only post a $1 million bond and argue financial hardship justifies reduced bond	Plaintiffs’ insolvency risk weighs in favor of full bond to protect Defendants’ ability to collect	Denied stay at reduced bond; insufficient showing for less than full bond
Post-judgment discovery re: assets	Discovery sought about non-parties and spouses is inappropriate	Discovery about third parties is permissible if related to judgment debtor’s assets	Struck motion on procedural grounds, but indicated such discovery is generally allowed
Certification for registration in Central District of California	Not directly opposed, but argue process should await appeal	Judgment should be certified due to lack of Arizona assets and existence of California assets	Granted certification for registration in California
Impact of pending appeal on judgment enforcement	Stay appropriate if bond is posted	Right to enforce judgment persists unless adequate bond is posted	Defendants may proceed with enforcement due to lack of sufficient bond

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (appeal typically divests district courts of jurisdiction)
Rachel v. Banana Republic, 831 F.2d 1503 (district courts have discretion in setting supersedeas bonds)
N.L.R.B. v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818 (purpose of supersedeas bond is to protect prevailing party)
Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (Hilton factors govern stays in injunctive relief cases)
Dillon v. Chicago, 866 F.2d 902 (Dillon factors govern monetary judgment stays)