Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC v. Elmer “Rick” Ferguson

Background

Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC asked for attorneys’ fees under a contractual fee provision and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The requested amount was $543,985.25. The request followed Judge Broderick’s June 9, 2025 order confirming an arbitration award in MMA’s favor and denying Ferguson’s motions to dismiss the claims and to vacate or modify the award. The court entered judgment on July 1, 2025. Ferguson appealed both the June 9 order and the judgment to the Second Circuit, and those appeals were pending when the court decided the motions addressed here.

Ferguson also moved to stay, or pause, enforcement of the judgment during his appeals without posting a supersedeas bond. A supersedeas bond is security intended to protect the prevailing party if the judgment is affirmed. Ferguson argued that he was on the verge of bankruptcy, had a negative net worth excluding protected retirement accounts, and could not afford a bond or its annual premium.

Attorneys’ Fees Motion

The court explained that a district court may decide a fee request while an appeal is pending, defer it, or deny it without prejudice and permit a renewed motion after the appeal. Judge Broderick exercised that discretion and denied MMA’s motion for attorneys’ fees without prejudice. The court reasoned that deciding the fee request before the appeals ended would not meaningfully assist the Court of Appeals and could require additional work after the appeals.

The court stated that MMA may file a new fee motion after the Second Circuit resolves the appeals and any later proceedings resulting from a remand. The new deadline is 21 days after the Second Circuit’s mandate is entered on the district court’s docket.

Motion to Stay the Judgment

For a money judgment, the court applied the five-factor framework concerning whether to waive the bond requirement. The factors address the complexity of collection, the time needed to obtain a judgment after affirmance, the court’s confidence that funds will be available, whether the defendant can plainly pay so that a bond would be wasteful, and whether the bond would place the defendant’s other creditors in an insecure position.

The court did not consider Ferguson’s arguments about the likelihood that he would succeed on appeal because that consideration belongs to the separate test for stays of injunctions or other equitable relief, not stays of money judgments. The court found that Ferguson’s statements that he could not pay the judgment or obtain a bond weighed decisively against waiving the bond requirement. Those statements also indicated that collection could be difficult and time-consuming. The court further found that Ferguson had not identified other creditors or shown that posting a bond, rather than the judgment itself, would prevent him from paying them.

The court therefore denied Ferguson’s motion to stay the judgment without posting a bond. It declined to waive the supersedeas-bond requirement and did not stay the judgment pending appeal.

Disposition

MMA’s motion for attorneys’ fees was denied without prejudice. Ferguson’s motion to stay the judgment without posting a bond was denied. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at docket entries 149 and 156.