(3) violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution,
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.
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.
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),
, 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)
Case 8:08-cv-02455-AW Document 57 Filed 08/21/2009 Page 2 of 10