District Judge Colleen McMahon
Navillus Tile was not in precarious financial condition prior to a Sept. 22, 2017 post-trial judgment of $76 million in plaintiffs’ favor (Judgment). Navillus appealed from judgment, claiming that execution thereon would render it insolvent and likely drive it to bankruptcy, Navillus sought to stay the Judgment’s enforcement pending appeal, absent posting of a supersedeas bond, as required under FRCP 62(d). Balancing the four factors in the Seventh Circuit’s test in Dillon v. Chicago, 866 F.2d 902, as called for the Second Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Nassau County Strip Search Cases, 783 F.3d 414—and discussing Miller v. City of Ithaca, Micula v. Gov’t of Romania and E.J. Brooks Co. v. Cambridge Sec. Seals—district court declined waiver of Rule 62(d)’s supersedeas bond requirement. The court found no instance where either the U.S. Supreme Court or Court of Appeals applied the four-factor test in Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, to a motion to stay enforcement of a money judgment without satisfying Rule 62(d)’s requirement of posting a bond. Thus the four-factor Hilton test Navillus pressed upon the court did not apply. Distinguishing the Second Circuit’s opinion in Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., district court deemed itself constrained by Rule 62(d).