1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 KEVIN F JACKSON, Case No. 20-cv-06007-VKD

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING STAY OF

10 v. JUDGMENT

11 APPLIED MATERIALS CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 86 et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 On October 7, 2022, the Court confirmed the arbitrator’s interim award of summary 15 disposition and final award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and entered judgment accordingly. Dkt. 16 Nos. 94, 95. Plaintiff Kevin Jackson previously filed a declaration, Dkt. No. 86, that the Court 17 construed in part as a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal. Dkt. No. 96. Defendants 18 Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied Materials”) and Keith Dupen (collectively “Defendants”) 19 oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 97. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b) the Court deems this matter 20 submitted on the papers and denies Mr. Jackson’s motion. 21 As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that execution of its judgment is automatically 22 stayed for 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a). Additionally, Mr. Jackson may obtain a stay of 23 execution of the judgment “by providing a bond or other security.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b); Fed. R. 24 App. P. 7. “A stay may be obtained under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62] subdivision (b) at 25 any time after judgment is entered. Thus a stay may be obtained before the automatic stay has 26 expired, or after the automatic stay has been lifted by the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62 advisory 27 committee’s note to 2018 amendment. “The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond or 1 has “inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds,” Rachel v. Banana Republic, 2 Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987), and may “waive the bond requirement if it sees fit,” 3 Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 881 F.2d 788, 796–97 (9th Cir. 1989). Mr. Jackson has 4 not provided a bond nor asked the Court to approve other security pursuant to Rule 62(b). 5 Moreover, as Mr. Jackson’s arguments in his motion and reply all pertain to the merits of his 6 claims, the Court does not construe Mr. Jackson’s papers as a request that the requirements of 7 Rule 62(b) be waived. 8 When determining whether to stay an award of attorney’s fees and costs pending appeal, 9 courts consider:

10 (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be 11 irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and 12 (4) where the public interest lies. 13 Resolute Forest Prod., Inc. v. Greenpeace Int’l, No. 17-CV-02824-JST, 2020 WL 8877819, at *3 14 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) (considering above factors in determining whether discretionary stay of 15 attorneys’ fees and costs is warranted) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)); 16 M.A. Mobile Ltd. v. Indian Inst. of Tech. Kharagpur, No. 3:08-cv-02658-WHO, 2019 WL 17 6525752, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019) (same); Kempthorne, 2007 WL 1982778, at *2 (same). 18 “‘The first two factors . . . are the most critical,’ . . . and the last two steps are reached ‘[o]nce an 19 applicant satisfies the first two factors.’” Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1164 (9th Cir. 20 2017). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an 21 exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). 22 Mr. Jackson has not met his burden to show that a discretionary stay is warranted. 23 Mr. Jackson’s papers only raise arguments that the Court has already addressed. For example, Mr. 24 Jackson continues to press the argument that the arbitrator should have reached the merits of his 25 claims instead of finding that they were barred by the release that he signed upon separation. Dkt. 26 No. 98 at 5. The Court has already considered this argument in its order granting defendants’ 27 motion to compel arbitration and concluded that it lacks merit. Dkt. No. 45. Mr. Jackson also 1 1-2. However, the Court also addressed this argument in the same order and found it lacked merit. 2 || Dkt. No. 45 at 7-8. Likewise, Mr. Jackson argues that he should have been provided a court 3 reporter for arbitration depositions. Dkt. No. 86 at 1; Dkt. No. 98 at 2-3. But the Court has 4 already addressed this argument and found it, too, lacks merit. Dkt. No. 94 at 3-4; Dkt. No. 82. 5 Here, again, the Court finds that Mr. Jackson is unlikely to succeed on the merits of these same 6 || arguments on appeal. 7 Mr. Jackson does not argue that he will be irreparably harmed if a stay is not granted 8 || pending appeal, nor does he address any of the other factors that bear on the issuance of a stay. 9 || See Dkt. Nos. 86, 98. 10 Because Mr. Jackson has not demonstrated that the Court should stay its judgment pending 11 appeal, the Court denies his motion for a stay. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: October 25, 2022

14 ae Unigniin®, LeMans 2 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI = 16 United States Magistrate Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28