UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
December 28, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ONE BOX AND PLASTIC BAGS CONTAINING ABOUT $1.2 MILLION IN MUTILATED U.S. CURRENCY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
JOSE CARRILLO-VALLES, AND CHERUBIM E. HURDLE, CLAIMANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John D. Bates United States District Judge
Before the Court is  Cherubim E. Hurdle's motion for a ninety-day stay of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b). She apparently intends to seek reconsideration of this Court's November 3, 2009 Memorandum Opinion and Order striking her claim, although she has yet to file a motion to that effect. See Cherubim E. Hurdle's Mot. for a Stay [Docket Entry 68], at 1 ("It is my intent to file that document for the court to receive it . . . [by] December 18, 2009."). Accordingly, she requests a stay to "stop payment on a proposed [settlement] agreement" between the government and Jose Carillo-Valles. Id. Both the government and Mr. Carillo-Valles oppose Ms. Hurdle's request for a stay. See Gov.'s Opp'n to Hurdle's Mot. ("Gov's Opp'n") [Docket Entry 71]; Jose Carillo-Valles' Opp'n to Hurdle's Mot. [Docket Entry 72].*fn1
Rule 62(b)(4) permits a court, "[o]n appropriate terms for the opposing party's security," to "stay the execution of a judgment . . . pending disposition of" a motion under "Rule 60." Here, however, Ms. Hurdle has not filed a motion for reconsideration, despite indicating her intention to do so. See Cherubim E. Hurdle's Notice of Intent to File Mot. to Modify ("Hurdle's Notice") [Docket Entry 67], at 1. On this basis alone a stay under Rule 62(b) is inappropriate. Nevertheless, even assuming that this technical hurdle does not bar Ms. Hurdle, the Court concludes that her filings do not demonstrate that a stay is warranted.
By its terms, Rule 62(b) gives the Court discretion to enter a stay, and one may be entered "on such conditions for the security of the adverse party as are proper." 11 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2903 (3d ed. 1998).*fn2 Here, Ms. Hurdle contends that the Court should issue a stay because "[t]here is . . . no proof of the right of the other claimant to claim both these properties, but there is proof of my right to claim. These newly discovered errors were found after the sur-reply was filed, and show facts supporting the motion which puts a new light on the government's Motion to strike . . . ." Hurdle's Notice at 1.
But Ms. Hurdle offers no evidence or argument to substantiate these conclusory statements. Indeed, she provides no hint as to what these "newly discovered errors" might be. To be sure, she contends that the Court never considered her September 15, 2009 amended claim -- which allegedly corrected some errors -- in resolving the government's motion to strike her claim. See id. at 4. The Court, however, analyzed all of Ms. Hurdle's filings when it resolved the motion to strike, including the September 15 pleading. See November 3, 2009 Memorandum Opinion and Order [Docket Entry 64], at 2-3 & n.4. And on the basis of these filings, the Court concluded that Ms. Hurdle had made "no showing of a 'colorable possessory interest'" in the defendant currency. Id. at 5. None of Ms. Hurdle's filings since the Court issued its opinion call into doubt this disposition.*fn3
Therefore, upon consideration of  Ms. Hurdle's motion for a stay of judgment of the Court's November 3, 2009 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the parties' memoranda, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.