Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-00122
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC, Judge Oetken stayed enforcement of Rifkin’s judgment if he posted a $100,000 bond.
Defendant Jacob Rifkin, Plaintiffs seeking to enforce the money judgment, and Rifkin’s co-defendants were affected. The order set the security required to pause enforcement during Rifkin’s appeal.
What happened
In Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC, Plaintiffs had a 2019 money judgment, and post-judgment interest increased the amount owed by Defendant Jacob Rifkin and his co-defendants to $636,498.63. Enforcement efforts had removed $624,200.78 from Rifkin’s savings account, but the money had not been paid to Plaintiffs.
Rifkin asked to pause enforcement during his appeal without posting an additional bond, arguing that the restrained funds were enough security. Plaintiffs sought total security of $816,039.43, including a bond of at least $191,838.65. The parties agreed that a stay was available if Rifkin provided adequate security, but they disagreed about the amount.
Judge James Oetken ruled that enforcement would be stayed when Rifkin provided a $100,000 bond in addition to the $624,200.78 already restrained. The court said the restrained funds alone did not provide full security because interest would continue to accrue, but it reduced Plaintiffs’ requested bond because the appeal was expected to be relatively simple and shorter than two years.
The detailed version
- Georgiev v. Adsad, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-00122
- James Oetken
- June 21, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs obtained a 2019 money judgment for $441,902.45. With post-judgment interest, Jacob Rifkin and his co-defendants owed $636,498.63. During efforts to enforce the judgment, Rifkin’s bank debited and removed $624,200.78 from his savings account. The funds had not yet been disbursed to Plaintiffs.
On June 2, 2021, Rifkin moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) to stay enforcement of the judgment during his appeal. That rule allows a party to obtain a stay after judgment by providing a bond or other security. Plaintiffs conceded that Rifkin was entitled to a stay if he provided adequate security, but the parties disagreed about the required amount.
Parties’ Positions
Rifkin argued that he should not have to provide a bond because the $624,200.78 restrained from his account exceeded the original judgment amount and constituted sufficient security. Plaintiffs requested a bond of at least $191,838.65 in addition to the restrained funds. Their proposed total security was $816,039.43, accounting for the judgment, post-judgment interest, anticipated interest during a projected two-year appeal, and legal fees associated with collection and earlier motions.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Rifkin had not shown a reason to depart from the usual requirement of full security for a stay of an unconditional money judgment. The restrained funds did not currently provide full security, and their adequacy would decrease as post-judgment interest continued to accrue. The court therefore determined that an additional bond was warranted.
The court also found that Plaintiffs had overestimated the likely length of the appeal and the costs of defending it. The court expected the appeal to involve relatively simple and few issues and to be resolved well before two years. It therefore reduced Plaintiffs’ proposed $191,838.65 bond to $100,000. The court stated that this amount roughly reflected one year of post-judgment interest, calculated as 365 days at $108.96 per day, plus $61,082.50 that Plaintiffs had spent opposing Rifkin’s earlier motions to vacate the judgment and reopen the case.
Disposition
The court ordered that enforcement of the judgment would be stayed upon Rifkin’s provision of a $100,000 bond, in addition to the $624,200.78 restrained from his savings account.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.