Order | Filed: July 24, 2026
| Entered: July 24, 2026
Morant v. New Haven et al
Civil Rights: Other | Connecticut
Order on Motion for Order
ORDER granting 625 Motion for Order Clarifying Scope of the Court's Order Staying Enforcement of Judgment. For the reasons below, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion and clarifies: (1) the stay on enforcement of the judgment at ECF No. 575 applies only to the City and (2) Plaintiff may engage in post-judgment discovery against Raucci and Maher, and post-judgment discovery against the City in the form of third-party discovery related to Raucci's and Maher's abilities to satisfy the judgment, consistent with the stay.
After a monetary judgment is entered "a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security." Fed R. Civ. P. 62(b). Filing of a supersedeas bond ensures "that the prevailing party will recover in full, if the decision should be affirmed, while protecting the other side against the risk that payment cannot be recouped if the decision should be reversed." In re Nassau Cnty. Strip Search Cases, 783 F.3d 414, 417 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal citation omitted). Neither Raucci nor Maher contest the fact that the supersedeas bond does not apply to them. See ECF No. 631 at 2 ("this Court should exercise its discretion to waive the bond requirement as to Mr. Raucci and extend the stay of enforcement to include Mr. Raucci"); ECF No. 632 at 1 (adopting and incorporating by reference Raucci's arguments at ECF No. 632 ); see also Supersedeas Bond, Ex. A, ECF No. 620-1 at 2 ("City of New Haven and Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company... each undertakes and promises to pay to Stefon Morant all damages, costs, and interests that may be awarded to Him"). Accordingly, Raucci and Maher seek to stay collection of a money judgment as against them without the posting of a supersedeas bond.
Raucci argues -- joined by Maher -- that because the bond "covers the entire compensatory judgment amount awarded by the jury," there is no need for either individual Defendant to post a bond to stay collection of the judgment as to them. ECF No. 631 at 2-3. But as Plaintiff points out, Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the judgment in this action. Accordingly, Plaintiff remains free to pursue collection of his judgment from any Defendant. Further, the City of New Haven is liable solely on one Count, the Monell claim. ECF No. 569 at 4-5. Should the Second Circuit disturb the jury's verdict as to this Count, but uphold the verdict as to the Counts against the individual Defendants, then the City's supersedeas bond would not apply, and Plaintiff would have lost any time in the interim to begin collection efforts. Finally, even if no verdict was disturbed on appeal, the Court has not determined the legal question of indemnity yet, and thus it is not certain whether the City would be required to indemnify Raucci and Maher or not. The posting of a supersedeas bond is intended to ensure that a prevailing party "will recover in full" against any appropriate Defendant. In re Nassau Cnty., 783 F.3d at 417. Thus, Raucci and Maher must provide a supersedeas bond should they wish to stay collection of the judgment against them.
In the alternative, Raucci and Maher argue that even if a supersedeas bond is required as to them, such requirement should be waived. A court may "in its discretion, waive the bond requirement 'if the appellant provides an acceptable alternative means of securing the judgment.'" Id. (citing Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig, 104 F.3d 123, 125 (7th Cir.1997)). The "'inflexible requirement of a bond'" is not required so long as "'the defendant's ability to pay the judgment is so plain that the cost of the bond would be a waste of money.'" Id. (quoting Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 786 F.2d 794, 796 (7th Cir.1986)). A court may waive the requirement of a supersedeas bond after considering: "(1) the complexity of the collection process; (2) the amount of time required t... (truncated)