Sands v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:17-cv-09215
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sands v. Bauer Media Group, Judge Kaplan denied Richard Liebowitz and his firm’s request to stay a $28,567.50 judgment without a bond pending appeal.
Richard Liebowitz and Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC, whose request to pause enforcement of the $28,567.50 judgment without a bond was denied.
What happened
In Sands v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC, Steve Sands’s attorneys, Richard Liebowitz and Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC, asked the court to pause enforcement of a $28,567.50 sanctions judgment while they appealed.
They argued that the firm could afford to pay the judgment if the sanctions were upheld, that requiring a bond would waste money, and that Bauer Media Group would not be harmed by a stay. The application was made by letter.
The court denied the request because Liebowitz provided no sworn financial information to support the firm’s claimed financial condition, the court could not reliably assess collection difficulties, and the request should have been made by a formal motion. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued the order.
The detailed version
- Sands v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC · No. 1:17-cv-09215
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 28, 2020
Background
The court had entered a $28,567.50 judgment imposing sanctions on Richard Liebowitz and Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC. A notice of appeal had been filed. Liebowitz and the firm sought a stay of enforcement pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond or other security. A stay would pause enforcement while the appeal proceeded.
Arguments
The applicants argued that the firm was in “solid financial condition” and could readily pay the judgment if the sanctions award were affirmed. They also argued that the firm’s ability to pay made the cost of a bond unnecessary and that collection would not be complicated. The application stated that Bauer Media would not be prejudiced by a stay.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a stay pending appeal was available as of right if the applicants posted a supersedeas bond. The court could also consider whether to waive that requirement. But the court found that Liebowitz had provided no affidavit, declaration, or reliable financial information supporting the claim that the firm could pay the judgment. The court therefore could not reliably evaluate either the firm’s financial condition or whether collection would be simple or difficult if the judgment were affirmed.
The court also found that the request was not properly presented because it was made by letter rather than by a formal motion, as required by the Southern District of New York’s electronic filing rules and instructions.
Disposition
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the motion. The opinion does not state that the court decided the merits of the underlying sanctions appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.