Edwyna W. Brooks v. Dash

Background

The court had previously held a three-day bench trial in this copyright and trademark infringement case. It issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Clerk entered final judgment for Edwyna Brooks against Damon Dash and Poppington LLC, jointly and severally, for $300,000, plus post-judgment interest at 0.22% per year beginning April 15, 2020. The judgment also permanently barred defendants from marketing, advertising, promoting, distributing, selling, or copying the film “Mafietta” without Brooks’s consent.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 5, 2020. They then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) for a discretionary stay, meaning a pause in enforcement of the judgment, without posting a bond or other security. Alternatively, they requested a two-week extension of the automatic stay under Rule 62(a) so they could obtain a supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment.

Court’s Analysis

A bond or other security ordinarily protects the prevailing party’s ability to recover the judgment if the decision is affirmed while protecting the appellant if the decision is reversed. The court may waive the bond requirement if the appellant provides an acceptable alternative way to secure the judgment.

The court considered factors including the complexity of collecting the judgment, the time needed to collect it after an affirmance, the likelihood that defendants had funds to pay, whether a bond would be wasteful because payment was clearly available, and whether requiring a bond would harm other creditors. Defendants argued that Poppington LLC’s annual net income exceeded the judgment and that it allegedly had no known secured creditors.

The court found that argument contradicted defendants’ earlier representations that Dash and Poppington LLC could not afford to pay even $2,410.75 in deposition costs previously ordered by the court. The court also noted defendants’ continued nonpayment of that amount. It therefore had no confidence in defendants’ ability or willingness to pay the judgment and expected collection to be challenging and complex if the judgment were affirmed.

Ruling

Judge Rakoff denied defendants’ request for a discretionary stay of enforcement and execution of the final judgment without a bond or other security. The court nevertheless granted an extension of the automatic stay until May 29, 2020 because Brooks had not opposed that alternative request. The court stated that it would grant no further extension and directed defendants to file any motion seeking approval of a bond sufficiently before May 29 for the court to rule before the stay expired. The Clerk was directed to close docket entry 76.