Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND(SOUTHERN DIVISION)
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 90, etal.,Plaintiffs,vs.Prince George's County, Maryland,Defendant.Civil Action No. 8:08-cv-02455-AW
MOTION FOR STAY PENDINGAPPEAL
COMES NOW Defendant Prince George’s County, Maryland (“the County”), pursuant toRule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves this Court for a stay of its judgmentpending the County’s appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
1
In support of this motion, the County wouldshow as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 Faced with budget constraints created by a declining housing market and decreased taxrevenues during fiscal year 2009, the County implemented a Furlough Plan affecting virtually allCounty employees. Plaintiffs, several unions and individual union members, instituted thisaction alleging that the Furlough Plan (1) violated the County’s collective bargainingagreements (“CBAs”) with the unions, (2) violated § 16-229 of the County Personnel Law, and
1
The County has consulted with counsel for Plaintiffs, who have not consented to the granting of a stay.
Case 8:08-cv-02455-AW Document 57 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 1 of 10
 
(3) violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution,
see
U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl.1. Following limited discovery, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment.This Court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claimsthat the Furlough Plan violated the CBAs and the County Code. As to the Contract Clauseclaim, this Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. The Court concluded that theFurlough Plan substantially impaired the CBAs and that the impairment was not “reasonable andnecessary to serve an important public purpose.”
United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey
, 431U.S. 1, 25 (1977). Having reached this conclusion, the Court ordered the parties to “consult anddiscuss the means and manner of refunding any monies owed to Union employees … within ten(10) days of the entry of this Order.” Order of Aug. 18, 2009 (Docket No. 54) (emphasisomitted). The County has appealed this Court’s ruling to the Fourth Circuit, and now seeks astay pending appeal.
ARGUMENT
 
I. The County Is Entitled To A Stay As A Matter Of Right
 Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure entitles an appellant to a stay pendingappeal upon posting of an appropriate bond. However, no bond is required if the appellant is theUnited States or one of its officers or agencies.
See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(e);
 Rhoads v. FDIC 
, 286F. Supp. 2d 532, 540 (D. Md. 2003) (holding that Rule 62(e) entitles the federal government to astay pending appeal as a matter of right),
affirmed 
, 94 Fed. Appx. 187 (4th Cir. 2004). Readtogether with Rule 62(d), “Rule 62(e) operates to provide an exception to the bond requirementof … Rule 62(d).”
 Hoban v. WMATA
, 841 F.2d 1157, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam)
2
Case 8:08-cv-02455-AW Document 57 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 2 of 10
 
(interpreting identical provisions of District of Columbia Superior Court rules). Similarly, theLocal Rules for the District of Maryland provide that the State of Maryland and its politicalsubdivisions are not required to post an appeal bond.
See
D. Md. R. 110(b). It therefore appearsthat the policy of the District of Maryland is to place the state and its political subdivisions inthe same position as the United States with respect to a stay pending appeal,
i.e.
, to entitle themto a stay pending appeal as a matter of right, without the requirement of posting a bond.Accordingly, the County is entitled to a stay of this Court’s judgment pending appeal.
II. The County Should be Granted A Stay Pursuant To Established Standards 
Even if this Court does not agree that the County is entitled to a stay pending appeal as amatter of right, the County nevertheless satisfies the showing required for entry of a staypending appeal.
A. Applicable Standard
 Issuance of a stay pending appeal is governed by an assessment of four factors:(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely tosucceed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absenta stay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injury the other partiesinterested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
 Hilton v. Braunskill
, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987);
see
 
 Long v. Robinson
, 432 F.2d 977, 979 (4thCir. 1970). This test “cannot be reduced to a set of rigid rules” but rather must be appliedflexibly, with a view to the individual circumstances of each case.
 Hilton
, 481 U.S. at 777.
3
Case 8:08-cv-02455-AW Document 57 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 3 of 10
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more