Satanic Temple, Inc., The v. City of Belle Plaine, MN
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:21-cv-00336
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Belle Plaine, Judge Wright approved a $16,943.40 bond and stayed the fee judgment pending appeal.
The plaintiff’s counsel, whose $16,943.40 attorneys’ fees obligation was stayed pending appeal if the required bond was deposited; the defendant’s counsel, whose fee award was secured by that bond; and the Clerk of Court, who was ordered to receive and deposit the bond.
What happened
In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. City of Belle Plaine, the court had ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to pay $16,943.40 in attorneys’ fees as a sanction for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff’s counsel asked to pause enforcement of that fee judgment while an appeal was pending. Counsel proposed depositing a $16,943.40 bond with the court, covering the full fee award.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright approved the proposed bond and granted the motion to stay enforcement of the attorneys’ fees judgment, conditioned on counsel depositing the bond. The judgment was stayed until further order of the court.
The detailed version
- Satanic Temple, Inc., The v. City of Belle Plaine, MN · No. 0:21-cv-00336
- Wilhelmina Wright
- June 3, 2022
Background
In a May 24, 2022 order, the court ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to pay $16,943.40 in reasonable attorneys’ fees to the defendant’s counsel as a sanction for violating Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion also refers to a May 25, 2022 judgment.
Motion to Stay
The plaintiff’s counsel moved to stay execution of the attorneys’ fees judgment while an appeal was pending. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) permits a court to pause enforcement of a judgment when a party provides a bond or other security. The court explained that the usual bond amount is the full judgment, plus interest, costs, and damages for delay, although a court may waive the bond requirement.
The plaintiff’s counsel proposed depositing a $16,943.40 supersedeas bond in the court registry. Counsel did not include interest, costs, or additional appellate attorneys’ fees, arguing that those amounts were minimal or did not apply. The court concluded that the proposed bond represented the full amount of the attorneys’ fees award and approved it.
Ruling
The court approved the proposed $16,943.40 supersedeas bond. The plaintiff’s counsel must deliver the bond to the clerk of court in an approved form, and the clerk must deposit it into the court registry and then into an interest-bearing account within the Court Registry Investment System. The court granted the motion to stay execution of the attorneys’ fees judgment, conditioned on the required deposit, and stayed the May 25, 2022 judgment until further order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.