Drivetrain LLC v. Dawson

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Anthony Dawson’s motion to stay enforcement of a $1,464,647 fraudulent-conveyance judgment pending appeal because he had not posted a supersedeas bond or objectively demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of the bond requirement. The court also denied the plan trustee’s motion to compel discovery without prejudice, directing the parties to meet and confer before seeking further court intervention.

Holdings

1. A party seeking to stay enforcement of a money judgment pending appeal ordinarily must post a supersedeas bond or other security under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). Departure from that requirement is discretionary but appropriate only in exceptional circumstances supported by an objective demonstration and an alternative means of securing the judgment creditor's interest. Dawson did not satisfy those requirements, so the stay was denied.
2. A motion to compel must be preceded by a good-faith effort to confer to narrow the parties' differences or sharpen the discovery dispute. Although a court may consider a motion without a meeting when the opposing party has simply failed to engage, correspondence and an offer to confer do not demonstrate the kind of refusal that warrants bypassing the meet-and-confer requirement. The motion to compel was therefore denied without prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dawson was entitled to a stay of enforcement of the money judgment pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond or other security.
2. Whether the plan trustee's motion to compel discovery should be granted when the parties had exchanged correspondence but had not completed a good-faith meet-and-confer required by Rule 37(a)(1).

Disposition

other