United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LEGALCOLLECTIONS.COM'S
AMENDED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS (DOC. 132)
AVERN COHN, Judge
a case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
and corresponding state debt collection statutes. Plaintiff
Terry Bryant sued defendants Meade & Associates (Meade),
the Law Offices of Donald R. Conrad, Donald R. Conrad, and
LegalCollections.com, LLC. Bryant settled with Meade. (Doc.
5). The case then proceeded against the Law Offices of Donald
R. Conrad, Donald R. Conrad, and LegalCollections.com
(collectively, where appropriate, the Conrad defendants).
the Court entered a default judgment against the Conrad
defendants for failure to comply with discovery and Court
orders relating to discovery. (Doc. 28). The Court later
granted plaintiff's motion for damages in the amount of
$101, 000.00 against the Conrad defendants, jointly and
severally. (Doc. 30). Plaintiff then began collection efforts
which to date have been unsuccessful.
the Court is Legalcollection.com LLC's motion to stay all
proceedings pending appeal (Doc. 132). For the reasons that
follow, the motion is DENIED.
filed her complaint against defendants on January 19, 2015.
(Doc. 1) Plaintiff alleged that she had been the victim of
identity theft: two transactions involving counterfeit checks
allegedly resulted in unlawful collection attempts by
Conrad defendants, through Donald R. Conrad, filed an Answer
on March 27, 2015. (Doc. 4). After that, the Conrad
defendants failed to participate in the case.
on May 11, 2016, the Court entered an Order for default
judgment against the Conrad defendants. (Doc. 28). The Conrad
defendants took no immediate action. On June 8, 2016,
plaintiff filed a motion for damages. (Doc. 29). The Conrad
defendants did not respond. On July 12, 2016, the Court
granted plaintiff's motion for damages. (Doc. 30). The
Conrad defendants took no immediate action.
months after the entry of the default judgment, the Conrad
defendants filed motions to set aside the judgment. (Docs.
36, 48, 63). The Court denied the motions. (Doc. 94).
Defendants moved for reconsideration. (Doc. 101). The Court
denied the motion. (Doc. 114).
then filed a notice of appeal, seeking to appeal the order
denying the motion to set aside and order denying
reconsideration. (Doc. 129). The Law Offices of Donald Conrad
and Donald Conrad filed a similar notice of appeal (Doc.
filing of an appeal does not operate to stay enforcement.
Rather, a party seeking to stay enforcement of a valid
judgment must file a bond securing the amount of the
underlying judgment. This stay bond - known as a supersedeas
- is required under the language of Rule 62,  and the posting
of the bond may only be waived under unusual, limited
circumstances. As noted in Hamlin v. Charter Township of
Flint, 181 F.R.D. 348, 351 (E.D. Mich. 1998):
For the appellee, Rule 62(d) effectively deprives him of his
right to enforce a valid judgment immediately. Consequently,
the appellant is required to post the bond to provide both
insurance and compensation to the appellee. The supersedeas
bond protects the non-appealing party ‘from a risk of
later uncollectible judgment' and also ‘provides
compensation for those injuries which can be said to be the
natural and proximate cause of the stay .... Therefore, Rule