Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:15-cv-04959
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Rogers stayed the fee judgment but required California to post a bond pending appeal.
The State of California must post a bond equal to 1.25 times the attorneys’ fee judgment to maintain the stay during its appeal. The plaintiffs and the San Francisco sheriff’s fee judgment remain stayed pending appeal.
What happened
Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco concerns the State of California’s request to pause an attorneys’ fee order while it appealed. The March 23, 2020 order had been entered based on a stipulated request by the plaintiffs and San Francisco’s sheriff.
The State asked to pause the order without posting a bond, arguing that it had enough money to pay the judgment and routinely paid judgments. The court was not persuaded, finding that collecting the award could require a complicated and lengthy legislative process, creating hardship for the small public-interest firm Equal Justice Under Law.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stayed the March 23 order pending appeal, denied the State’s request to waive the bond, and ordered the State to post a bond equal to 1.25 times the judgment by October 30, 2020. The court stated that failing to post the bond on time would automatically end the stay.
The detailed version
- Buffin v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 4:15-cv-04959
- Yvonne Rogers
- June 30, 2020
Background
On March 23, 2020, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs’ and the San Francisco sheriff’s stipulated request for an attorneys’ fee judgment against the State of California. The State appealed that order and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 to stay enforcement while the appeal was pending without requiring a supersedeas bond. A supersedeas bond is security posted to protect payment of a judgment while enforcement is paused during an appeal.
Arguments and analysis
The court explained that district courts have discretion to set a bond and, in appropriate circumstances, to waive it. It considered factors concerning the complexity and timing of collecting the judgment, the availability of funds, the cost of a bond, and the effect of a bond on other creditors.
The State argued primarily that its financial resources made a bond unnecessary. The court held that the State’s resources alone did not justify waiving the bond. It also rejected the argument that the State’s usual process for paying judgments was enough, because the evidence indicated that collecting this award could require a complex and time-consuming legislative appropriation or legislation. The court noted that delay would especially burden Equal Justice Under Law, described as a small public-interest law firm that depended on fee awards for continued operations and faced challenges during the public-health and economic crisis. The court also cited an earlier related proceeding in which a State appeal and legislative appropriation took years and several additional months, respectively.
Ruling
The court stayed the March 23, 2020 order pending appeal. It denied the request to waive the bond requirement and ordered the State to post a bond equal to 1.25 times the judgment by October 30, 2020. The court stated that failure to post the bond on time would automatically lift the stay and terminated Docket Number 400.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.