context: The fundamental question in this regard, then, is not whether the underlying judgment itself put a dollar figure on the relief ordered, but on whether the monetary value of the judgment "can be calculated and secured with relative ease."
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 201 F.Supp.2d 41, 43
citation_a.parenthetical: "when a judgment involves costs that cannot be calculated, it is inequitable to grant a stay and thus to deny the non-moving party assurance that it will not suffer additional harm"
citation_a.sentence: J. Perez & CIA, Inc. v. United States, 747 F.2d 813, 816 (1st Cir.1984) (Breyer, J., in chambers); see also Miller v. LeSea Broadcasting, Inc., 927 F.Supp. 1148,1151 (E.D.Wis. 1996) (“The right to obtain an automatic stay under Rule 62(d) is presumably premised on the fact that money judgments, and therefore the amount of the required bond, are easily calculated”); cf. In re Tower Automotive, Inc., No. 06-CV-2105 (RWS), 2007 WL 1975447, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007) (since court’s judgment was a declaratory judgment that determined the scope of insurer’s obligation, and that “awarded no fixed sum of money,” and because “the parties agree[d] that the amount due under the insurance policy [was at that time] unknown[,] Rule 62(d) [wa]is inapplicable”); Omnioffices, Inc. v. Kaidanow, 201 F.Supp.2d 41, 43 (D.D.C.2002) (“when a judgment involves costs that cannot be calculated, it is inequitable to grant a stay and thus to deny the non-moving party assurance that it will not suffer additional harm”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 927 F.Supp. 1148, 1151
citation_b.parenthetical: "The right to obtain an automatic stay under Rule 62(d) is presumably premised on the fact that money judgments, and therefore the amount of the required bond, are easily calculated"
citation_b.sentence: J. Perez & CIA, Inc. v. United States, 747 F.2d 813, 816 (1st Cir.1984) (Breyer, J., in chambers); see also Miller v. LeSea Broadcasting, Inc., 927 F.Supp. 1148,1151 (E.D.Wis. 1996) (“The right to obtain an automatic stay under Rule 62(d) is presumably premised on the fact that money judgments, and therefore the amount of the required bond, are easily calculated”); cf. In re Tower Automotive, Inc., No. 06-CV-2105 (RWS), 2007 WL 1975447, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2007) (since court’s judgment was a declaratory judgment that determined the scope of insurer’s obligation, and that “awarded no fixed sum of money,” and because “the parties agree[d] that the amount due under the insurance policy [was at that time] unknown[,] Rule 62(d) [wa]is inapplicable”); Omnioffices, Inc. v. Kaidanow, 201 F.Supp.2d 41, 43 (D.D.C.2002) (“when a judgment involves costs that cannot be calculated, it is inequitable to grant a stay and thus to deny the non-moving party assurance that it will not suffer additional harm”).