Edmo v. Corizon Incorporated et al, No. 1:2017cv00151 - Document 337 (D. Idaho 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - To the extent Defendants Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Dkt. 332 ) sought to stay execution of the judgment the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Judge B Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (lm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Edmo v. Corizon Incorporated et al Doc. 337 Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 337 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ADREE EDMO, Case No. 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Defendants. Defendants’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply (Dkt. 332) sought more time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Execution. In making that request, though, Defendants made several references to “pausing” Plaintiff’s collection efforts in order to promote “meaningful mediation.” Dkt. 332 at 4. In doing so, Defendants alluded to—but did not clearly request—staying execution of the judgment pending the outcome of mediation. The Court issues this Order to make clear that its Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 334) issued November 23, 2022 did not resolve whether execution of the judgment should or should not be stayed pending mediation. That is because Defendants did not expressly request a stay, despite their references to “pausing” MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 337 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2 of 3 Plaintiff’s collection efforts. Instead, Defendants merely requested an extension of time to respond to the request for a writ of execution. As the Court has already explained, Defendants were not entitled to file a response in that procedural posture and could not effectively delay execution of the judgment simply by expanding the briefing schedule. Dkt. 334. Nonetheless, that conclusion does not foreclose Defendants’ path to request a stay of execution. Thus, to the extent Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. 332) did seek to stay execution of the judgment, that motion will be denied without prejudice. Although Defendants explained that “pausing” collection efforts would promote “meaningful mediation,” that statement is not, itself, sufficient to justify staying execution. More is needed to show that a stay is justified, and that Plaintiff will be protected absent a bond under Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ultimately, Defendants may request to stay execution of the judgment pending the outcome of mediation. But they must do so by filing a separate motion to be set on a separate briefing schedule. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. To the extent Defendants’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Dkt. 332) sought to stay execution of the judgment, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 Case 1:17-cv-00151-BLW Document 337 Filed 11/30/22 Page 3 of 3 the motion is DENIED without prejudice. DATED: November 30, 2022 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
