1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 STEVEN L. LOMBARDO, et al., Case No. 20-cv-02153-BLF

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

9 v. ENFORCE JUDGMENT; AND

STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF

10 MERCANTILE RESOURCE GROUP, INC, JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 62(H) et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the judgment previously entered by this 14 Court. See Mot., ECF 71. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that this motion is 15 appropriate for determination without oral argument, and the July 1, 2021 hearing is VACATED. 16 The motion is DENIED. 17 When the Court entered its judgment on October 26, 2020, (ECF 64) default judgment had 18 been entered against all three Defendants. See Order, ECF 56. However, the day after Plaintiffs 19 filed this motion, the Court granted Defendant David Sanchez’s motion to vacate the default 20 judgment entered against him, finding that he had demonstrated good cause under Rule 60(b). See 21 Order Granting Mot. to Vacate, ECF 73. Plaintiffs only sought injunctive relief, and the judgment 22 requires all three Defendants to deliver certain personal property to Plaintiffs, including 82 income 23 and mortgage bonds. See Judgment 2, ECF 64. However, Plaintiffs concede that Defendant 24 Sanchez is co-owner of the bonds. See Mot. 2. Since Defendant Sanchez is no longer subject to the 25 judgment entered by this Court, the Court could not order enforcement of the judgment without 26 prejudice to Defendant Sanchez. 27 “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(h) provides that when a court has entered final 1 subsequent judgment or judgments.’ AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 2 955 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 62¢h)). “In fashioning a stay of enforcement, a court 3 looks to general equitable principles.” AmerisourceBergen Corp., 465 F.3d at 956 (quoting 4 || Pereira vy. Cogan, 275 B.R. 472, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). The Court finds that it would be prejudicial 5 || to Defendant Sanchez to enforce the judgment and deprive him of his property without first 6 allowing him to litigate the merits of this case. Similarly, the Court does not find that Plaintiffs 7 will be prejudiced by litigating the merits of this case. Using its discretion, the Court DENIES 8 Plaintiffs’ motion and will STAY enforcement of the judgment entered on October 26, 2020, until 9 this case is fully resolved.! 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 || Dated: April 1, 2021 én) Me 4

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

15 United States District Judge 16

= 17

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' The Court notes that Defendant Sanchez incorrectly believes that Defendants Mercantile Resource Group, Inc., and Choctaw Indian Asset Recovery Trust, of which he is a trustee, are not 7 subject to the judgment entered by this Court. See Opp’n ¥ 3, ECF 78. The Court’s judgment clearly indicates that it is against “Mercantile Resource Group, Inc., and Choctaw Indian Asset 2g || Recovery Trust dba Choctaw Management Group.” Judgment 1. Defendant Sanchez is encouraged to correct this misconception if his fellow Defendants share it.