The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, et al.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:24-cv-03104
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration, Judge Chesney denied the Bochnowskis’ motion to stay enforcement of Nicaragua’s $1.5 million judgment pending appeal.
The ruling directly affected James John Bochnowski and Janet Bochnowski, who sought to pause enforcement of the $1,500,000 judgment and avoid posting security. It also affected the other respondents who joined the motion and the Republic of Nicaragua, which may continue seeking enforcement of the judgment.
What happened
The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation involved a motion by James John Bochnowski and Janet Bochnowski to pause enforcement of a judgment awarding Nicaragua $1.5 million from an arbitral award. Several other respondents joined the motion.
The Bochnowskis sought a stay pending appeal without posting a bond or other security. Alternatively, they sought a stay while applying for a license from the Office of Foreign Assets Control, based on their concern that paying Nicaragua could lead to prosecution or another adverse consequence. The court found they had not shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal, had not shown they could pay the judgment later, and had not provided enough facts supporting their concern about penalties.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the Motion to Stay. The court also stated that Nicaragua was not subject to United States sanctions.
The detailed version
- The Republic of Nicaragua v. Hills Exploration Corporation, et al. · No. 3:24-cv-03104
- Maxine Chesney
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
The court had confirmed an arbitral award issued under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States and entered an amended judgment awarding the Republic of Nicaragua $1,500,000. James John Bochnowski and Janet Bochnowski, collectively referred to as the Bochnowskis, moved to stay enforcement of that judgment while an appeal was pending.
The Bochnowskis also asked the court to excuse them from posting the bond or other security generally required for a stay pending appeal. In the alternative, they asked for a stay until they could apply to the Office of Foreign Assets Control for a license allowing payment of the judgment. Elsbeth Foster, Walter John Bilger, David A. Barish, and Gale Ruth Feuer Barish filed a notice joining the motion. Nicaragua opposed it.
Court’s Analysis
For the requested stay pending appeal, the court applied the factors described in Hilton v. Braunskill, including whether the applicants had made a strong showing that they were likely to succeed on appeal. The court found that the Bochnowskis had made no such showing.
The Bochnowskis relied on Dillon v. City of Chicago to seek a waiver of the bond requirement. The court noted that they had not shown that the Ninth Circuit had adopted, or would adopt, the approach in Dillon. The court also found that they had offered no evidence that they had, and would continue to have, enough funds to pay the judgment after the appeal. The court stated that the Bochnowskis improperly tried to shift to Nicaragua the burden of showing that they lacked sufficient assets.
Regarding the alternative request for a stay while seeking an Office of Foreign Assets Control license, the court found that the Bochnowskis cited no supporting authority and had not made a sufficient factual showing that they faced prosecution or another adverse consequence for paying the judgment. The court also stated that Nicaragua was not an entity subject to United States sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Maxine M. Chesney denied the Motion to Stay. The order did not grant a stay pending appeal, waive the bond or other-security requirement, or stay enforcement while the Bochnowskis sought an Office of Foreign Assets Control license.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.