Tardif v. City of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:13-cv-04056
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tardif v. City of New York, Judge Wood temporarily paused enforcement without a bond and granted the City’s request for more time to file post-trial motions.
The City of New York and Mary Tardif; the order affected enforcement of the judgment and the deadlines for post-trial briefing.
What happened
In Tardif v. City of New York, the City asked to pause enforcement of the judgment without posting a bond or other security. It also asked for two more weeks to file its post-trial motions, and Mary Tardif consented to that schedule extension.
The court paused enforcement without a bond or other security for 30 days. During that period, the City must provide information about whether sufficient funds are available to pay the judgment and information relevant to the factors used to decide whether security should be required.
The court granted the City’s request for a two-week extension and set filing deadlines for the parties’ post-trial briefs. Judge Kimba Wood required the City to file its supporting memorandum by August 15, 2022, Tardif to file her opposition by September 29, 2022, and any City reply by October 31, 2022.
The detailed version
- Tardif v. City of New York · No. 1:13-cv-04056
- Kimba Wood
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
The City of New York asked the court to modify its prior order in two respects. First, it requested a stay of enforcement of the judgment without posting a bond or other security. Second, it requested a two-week extension of the briefing schedule for its post-trial motions because of scheduling constraints and the need for additional preparation time.
The City argued that it had the means and an efficient process to satisfy the judgment, making a bond unnecessary. It cited five factors used in the circuit to evaluate whether to waive a bond or other security: the complexity of collecting the judgment, the time needed to obtain payment after an appeal, confidence that funds will be available, whether the cost of a bond would be wasteful, and whether requiring a bond would endanger other creditors.
Rulings
The court stayed execution of the judgment without bond or other security for 30 days. The stay was intended to allow the City to provide information showing that sufficient funds were available to pay the judgment and additional information relevant to balancing the five factors.
With the plaintiff’s consent, the court granted the City’s request to extend the post-trial briefing schedule by two weeks. The City must file its supporting memorandum by August 15, 2022; Tardif must file her opposition by September 29, 2022; and, if the City files a reply, it must do so by October 31, 2022. The court stated that no further extensions would be granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.