Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n, s. 80-1359
Citation | 205 U.S. App. D.C. 47,636 F.2d 755 |
Decision Date | 24 November 1980 |
Docket Number | Nos. 80-1359,80-1368,s. 80-1359 |
Parties | , 1980-81 Trade Cases 63,646 FEDERAL PRESCRIPTION SERVICE, INC. et al., v. AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, William S. Apple et al. FEDERAL PRESCRIPTION SERVICE, INC. et al., Appellants, v. AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION et al. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
On Appellee's motion to set aside unsecured stay on appeal (D.C. Civil Action No. 77-1163).
Geo. S. Leonard, Washington, D. C., was on appellee's motion to set aside unsecured stay on appeal.
Paul L. O'Brien and Michael H. McConihe, Washington, D. C., were on appellant's response to motion to set aside stay pending appeal.
Before ROBINSON, MacKINNON and MIKVA, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge MacKINNON
After extensive pretrial proceedings in a suit by the Federal Prescription Service, Inc. (hereafter Federal) and several individual plaintiffs, charging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, the case was tried to the district court without a jury. Thereafter the court entered extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law denying any damages to the individual plaintiffs and awarding trebled damages of $102,000 in favor of Federal and against the American Pharmaceutical Association (hereafter American). Judgment accordingly was entered on February 14, 1980. On April 18 the district court granted American's motion for stay pending appeal, stating:
In view of the fact that both parties have appealed from the Judgment entered February 14, 1980, and that defendant has submitted financial statements demonstrating its continuing ability to satisfy the Judgment, no bond need be posted as security in this action. 1
(Emphasis added.)
Federal has now moved this court:
(c) alternatively, to require the Association to file a supersedeas bond in an amount sufficient to protect Federal against consequential injury including its loss of market interest, together with a sum adequate to cover its attorneys fees and costs which were left unresolved by the District Court.
The grounds for this motion are that (i) the April 18, 1980 order of the District Court is contrary to Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (ii) under the rule against unsecured appeals and the conclusions summarized in the Court's order of February 14, 1980, the granting of such a stay constituted an abuse of judicial discretion.
These contentions are discussed in turn. 2
Federal contends that a supersedeas bond is an indispensable prerequisite to a stay on appeal from a money judgment by virtue of Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). This rule provides:
Stay Upon Appeal. When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay subject to the exceptions contained in (Rule 62(a), relating to injunctions and other specified forms of equitable relief). The bond may be given at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal.... The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court.
Although some authorities tend to support Federal's position that a supersedeas bond is required, 3 we find more persuasive the contrary view that Rule 62(d) only operates to provide that an appellant in all cases may obtain a stay as a matter of right by filing a supersedeas bond, and does not prohibit the district court from exercising a sound discretion to authorize unsecured stays in cases it considers appropriate. Our view follows from an analysis of Rule 62(d) in conjunction with other relevant rules of federal procedure, and conforms to several authorities we consider to be persuasive: Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979) ( ); C. Albert Sauter Co. v. Richard S. Sauter Co., 368 F.Supp. 501, 520-21 (E.D.Pa.1973) ( ); Trans World Airlines v. Hughes, 314 F.Supp. 94 (S.D.N.Y.1970) ( )(where posting bond to cover $161 million judgment was "not practicable," court would exercise "inherent power in extraordinary circumstances to provide for form and amount for a stay pending appeal" and require a bond of only $75 million coupled with defendant's assurances that it would maintain a net worth treble the balance of the judgment); see In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977) () ; Blackwelder v. Crooks, 151 F.Supp. 26, 28 (D.D.C.1957) ; Redding & Company v. Russwine Constr. Co., 417 F.2d 721, 727 (D.C.Cir.1969) ( ).
Our only explicit guidance on the matter of supersedeas bonds appeared in former Fed.R.Civ.P. 73(d), 383 U.S. 1061-62 (1966), which provided that when an appellant entitled thereto desired a stay on appeal he could present to the court for its approval a supersedeas bond, fixed in an amount to satisfy the judgment in full, together with costs, interest, and damages for delay, in the event the appeal was dismissed or the judgment affirmed. The district court could, however, "fix( ) a different amount or order( ) security other than the bond" "after notice and hearing and for good cause shown." Id. at 1062. 4 Although Rule 73 was among the rules abrogated and supplanted in 1968 by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, see 389 U.S. at 1065-66, and although the appellate rule covering the subject matter of old Rule 73(d) (Fed.R.App.P. 8) does not repeat Rule 73(d)'s detail, the substance of Rule 73(d) retains vitality inasmuch as it had simply codified judicial practice. See Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1191 (5th Cir. 1979); 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 208.05 at 8-14 (2d ed. 1980).
We find in both former Rule 73(d) and in its successor, Fed.R.App.P. 8, a recognition of the district court's discretionary power to stay execution of a money judgment without requiring bond. First, former Rule 73(d)'s recognition that the district court has power to reduce the amount of bond or accept substitute security logically includes a power to dispense with formal security altogether, upon a showing of sufficient cause. This reading of former Rule 73(d) is suggested by the analogous practice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c) ("Injunctions"), which provides in pertinent part:
(c) Security. No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the appellant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred ... by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained. No such security shall be required of the United States.... (Emphasis added.)
Courts interpreting this language have concluded the district court has power not only to set the amount of security but to dispense with any security requirement whatsoever where the restraint will do the defendant "no material damage," Urbain v. Knapp Brothers Manufacturing Co., 217 F.2d 810, 816 (6th Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 930, 75 S.Ct. 772, 99 L.Ed. 1260 (1955), where there "has been no proof of likelihood of harm," International Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 490 F.2d 1334, 1356 (2d Cir. 1974) (citing Ferguson v. Tabah, 288 F.2d 665, 675 (2d Cir. 1961)), and where the applicant for equitable relief has "considerable assets and (is) ... able to respond in damages if (defendant) does suffer damages by reason of (a wrongful) injunction," Continental Oil Co. v. Frontier Refining Co., 338 F.2d 780, 782-83 (10th Cir. 1964). Given the similarity between former Rule 73(d) and Rule 65(c), these holdings compel the conclusion that the district court, in staying execution of a money judgment, has a discretion with respect to requiring the posting of security that is analogous to the widely recognized discretion that a district court granting temporary injunctive relief has with respect to the security requirement of Rule 65(c). See 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 208.06(1) at 8-18.
Federal argues that such a discretion is at odds with Rule 62(d) provision that "the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay." We disagree. Beyond question, Rule 62(d) entitles the appellant who files a satisfactory supersedeas bond to a stay of money judgment as a matter of right. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Broadcasting Paramount Theatres, Inc., 385 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 1, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Sindesmos Hellinikes-Kinotitos of Chicago
...immediately even though an appeal is pending, we agree with the contrary conclusion in Federal Prescription Serv., Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 757–60 (D.C. Cir. 1980)." Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. W. Union Tel. Co. , 786 F.2d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 1986). The Seventh ......
-
DSE, Inc. v. U.S.
...in the district court to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond. See, e.g., Federal Prescription Serv., Inc. v. American Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 759 (D.C.Cir.1980) (discussing the widely recognized discretion that a district court granting temporary injunctive relief has......
-
Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. All Prof'l Realty, Inc.
...an unsecured stay is reserved for “unusual circumstances” and awarded at the court's discretion. Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 760–61 (D.C.Cir.1980). “Courts addressing a motion for an unsecured stay under Rule 62(d) have expressed a willingness to grant s......
-
C.B. v. Sonora Sch. Dist.
...benefits of his judgment, a full supersedeas bond should be the requirement in normal circumstances.” Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 760 (D.C.Cir.1980). District courts have “inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds,” Rachel, 831 F.2d a......
-
Putting the brakes on litigation: stays pending review.
...of a stay even if a judgment is solely for the payment of money. See, e.g., Federal Prescription Serv., Inc. v. American Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (holding that court retains discretion to condition terms of stay pending (14) When the Third District decided Valsecchi, the ......
-
Post Judgment Enforcement and Remedies in the Federal Courts and California Courts
...1141, 1146 (C.D. Cal. 1999).08. Quiles v. Parent, 10 Cal. App. 5th 130, 147 (2017).09. Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 757-58 (D.C. Cir. 1980).10. Sarkany v. West, 82 Cal. App. 5th 801, 298 Cal. Rptr. 3d 809, 814 (2022).11. See Nautilus, Inc. v. Yang, 11 Cal......
-
Appellate stays in civil cases: Florida and federal courts offer more security flexibility than believed, but stay violations still have teeth.
...bond for full amount of judgment). (29) Avirgan, 125 F.R.D. at 187; Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Assoc., 636 F.2d 755, 761 (D.C. Cir. 1980); accord Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Carbon County Coal Co., 799 F.2d 265, 281 (7th Cir. (30) Paynter, 807 F......