AlSayer v. Labs

Background

The court had awarded Muthla AlSayer a declaratory judgment on January 15, 2025. OmniX Labs filed an appeal, and AlSayer filed a cross-appeal concerning the dismissal of her indemnification claim.

AlSayer then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 for further relief enforcing the declaratory judgment. She sought an order requiring OmniX Labs to pay the full amount of the loan plus fees, stated as KWD 420,453,440, or alternatively to make monthly payments of KWD 35,037.786 until the loan was fully repaid. OmniX Labs separately moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and the court’s inherent authority to stay enforcement while its appeal was pending.

Court’s analysis

The court first considered whether the filing of the appeal removed its authority to address the enforcement request. Ordinarily, filing a notice of appeal gives the appeals court jurisdiction over matters involved in the appeal and limits the district court’s control over those matters. The court held, however, that Section 2202 allows a district court to grant further relief based on a declaratory judgment even after an appeal has been filed. The court therefore held that it had jurisdiction to consider AlSayer’s motion.

The court then found that AlSayer’s enforcement motion was insufficient as presented. She was seeking relief that would effectively convert the declaratory judgment into a money judgment or an order requiring payment. The motion relied solely on a declaration from counsel, rather than evidence from a person with personal knowledge of the relevant facts. Because OmniX Labs identified factual and legal issues that could affect the requested monetary relief, the court looked to the procedures for summary judgment. Those procedures require evidence in the record or declarations based on personal knowledge and allow an opposing party to explain why it cannot yet present facts needed to oppose the motion.

The court concluded that AlSayer had not shown that no genuine dispute of material fact remained. It therefore denied her enforcement motion as presented, while granting her leave to refile it as a motion for summary judgment on enforcement of the declaratory judgment. The renewed motion must include a legal memorandum, a supporting declaration, and a statement of undisputed facts under Rule 56.1. OmniX Labs will be allowed to respond, and AlSayer may reply.

OmniX Labs’ motion to stay enforcement was based on the court granting AlSayer’s enforcement motion. Because the court denied that motion, it also denied OmniX Labs’ motion to stay. The court’s opening statement describes both motions as denied without prejudice; the conclusion specifically states that AlSayer’s motion was denied with leave to replead. The parties were directed to submit a proposed briefing schedule by December 10, 2025, and the clerk was asked to close the two motion entries.