Jackson v. Applied Materials Corporation
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-06007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jackson v. Applied Materials, Judge Demarchi denied Jackson’s request to stay the judgment pending appeal because he did not show grounds for a stay.
Kevin Jackson’s request to pause enforcement of the judgment was denied; the judgment concerning attorneys’ fees and costs was not stayed by this order.
What happened
In Jackson v. Applied Materials Corporation, the court had confirmed an arbitrator’s award and entered judgment for attorneys’ fees and costs. Kevin Jackson asked the court to pause enforcement of that judgment while he pursued an appeal. Applied Materials and Keith Dupen opposed the request.
The court explained that the judgment was automatically paused for 30 days and that Jackson could seek a further pause by providing a bond or other security. Jackson did not provide a bond or request approval of other security. His arguments repeated challenges the court had already rejected, and he did not argue that he would suffer serious harm without a stay or address the other relevant factors.
Judge Demarchi denied Jackson’s motion to stay the judgment pending appeal. The court concluded that Jackson had not shown that he was likely to succeed on appeal or otherwise demonstrated that a stay was warranted.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Applied Materials Corporation · No. 5:20-cv-06007
- Virginia Demarchi
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
The court had confirmed an arbitrator’s interim award of summary disposition and final award of attorneys’ fees and costs, then entered judgment. Kevin Jackson previously filed a declaration that the court construed in part as a motion to stay enforcement of the judgment while an appeal was pending. Applied Materials, Inc. and Keith Dupen opposed the motion.
Issue and governing standard
The question was whether the court should pause enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. The court noted that enforcement was automatically stayed for 30 days after entry of judgment. It also explained that a party may obtain a further stay by providing a bond or other security. The court has discretion to set or waive a bond requirement, but Jackson had not provided a bond or asked the court to approve other security. Because his arguments concerned the merits of his claims, the court did not construe his filings as a request to waive the security requirement.
For a discretionary stay of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pending appeal, courts consider whether the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. The party requesting the stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify it.
Court’s analysis
The court found that Jackson had not met that burden. His filings repeated arguments the court had already addressed, including his contention that the arbitrator should have reached the merits of his claims rather than treating them as barred by the release he signed upon separation. The court had previously rejected that argument when granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.
Jackson also argued that he should have been provided a court reporter for arbitration depositions. The court had previously found that argument lacked merit as well. The court concluded that Jackson was unlikely to succeed on these same arguments on appeal. In addition, Jackson did not argue that he would be irreparably harmed without a stay and did not address the other stay factors.
Disposition
The court denied Jackson’s motion for a stay. The opinion does not state that the judgment was vacated or that the underlying arbitration ruling was reopened.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.