794 F. Supp. 2d 566
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Graham Company sued Haughey and USI for copyright infringement; district court judgment later affirmed by the Third Circuit.
- On May 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed Graham's judgment against defendants for $23,542,028 plus postjudgment interest.
- On June 9, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a certified copy treated as a mandate; defendants sought a stay and bond while pursuing certiorari to the Supreme Court.
- The parties previously agreed to a stay upon posting a bond of $24,459,742; a subsequent order increased the bond to $30,532,521 due to additional postjudgment interest.
- Defendants now seek a bond of $31,192,928; they rely on Rule 62(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) to authorize a stay pending certiorari.
- The court denied the stay and bond requests, holding that Rule 62(d) and § 2101(f) do not authorize a district court to stay a judgment pending Supreme Court review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of district court to stay pending certiorari | Graham asserts Rule 62(d) is inapplicable; § 2101(f) requires appellate or Supreme Court intervention. | Haughey/USI contend Rule 62(d) or § 2101(f) permit a district court stay with bond approval. | Denied; district court has no such authority. |
| Applicability of Rule 62(d) to certiorari petitions | Rule 62(d) governs stays on appeals, not certiorari petitions. | Rule 62(d) should extend to stays pending Supreme Court review. | Rule 62(d) does not apply here. |
| Interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) in stay decisions | § 2101(f) allows stays of appellate judgments, enabling certiorari review. | § 2101(f) supports district court stay pending Supreme Court review. | § 2101(f) contemplates appellate (Court of Appeals) or Supreme Court judges, not district court stays. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009) (principal copyright-judgment history informing stay authority)
- Graham v. Haughey, 646 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 2011) (affirmation of judgment and related postjudgment considerations)
- In re Stumes, 681 F.2d 524 (8th Cir. 1982) (interpretation of § 2101(f) scope and appellate-stay boundaries)
- United States v. Lentz, 352 F. Supp. 2d 718 (E.D. Va. 2005) (district court limitations on stays pending appellate review)
- Donovan v. Fall River Foundry Co., Inc., 696 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1982) (stay principles in appellate context)