United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Sonya Gravitt's Motion to
Stay Pending Appeal  (“Motion to Stay”).
February 2, 2017, the Court issued an Order 
(“Contempt Order”) holding Gravitt in contempt of
the Court's August 23, 2016, Order  (“August
23rd Order”). The Court required Gravitt to pay
Receiver Al Hill's (“Receiver”)
attorneys' fees incurred in his attempts to enforce
compliance with the August 23rd Order. The Court ordered:
To purge herself of contempt, Gravitt shall, on or before
5:00 p.m. on February 6, 2017, (1) sign and transmit to the
Receiver the assignment documents provided by the Receiver or
pay the Receiver $1, 439.79 in fictitious profits; and (2)
pay the Receiver $12, 304 in attorneys' fees. If Gravitt
fails to purge herself of contempt on or before 5:00 p.m. on
February 6, 2017, Gravitt is required to pay into the
registry of the Court $500 per day until she purges herself
of contempt. If Gravitt fails to purge herself of contempt on
or before 5:00 p.m. February 13, 2017, the Court orders the
United States Marshals Service to take Gravitt into custody,
and Gravitt shall be incarcerated until she purges herself of
contempt. In all cases, Gravitt is required to pay the
Receiver the amount of $12, 304 ordered by the Court to
compensate the Receiver for having to pursue Gravitt's
(Contempt Order at 11-12).
February 6, 2017, at approximately 4 p.m., Gravitt remitted a
cash payment to the Receiver of $1, 500.00. ( at 1). On
February 7, 2017, at approximately 3:30 p.m., the Receiver
received a certified check from Gravitt in the amount of $12,
304.00. (Id.). The same day, Gravitt deposited
$500.00 into the registry of the Court. (February 7, 2017,
February 10, 2017, Gravitt filed her Notice of Appeal 
of the Court's Contempt Order. The same day, she filed
her Motion to Stay. Gravitt seeks, pursuant to Rule 62 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a stay of the enforcement
of the Contempt Order pending the disposition of her appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit. Specifically, she seeks a return of “all
purge[d] amounts paid by Ms. Gravitt pending appeal . . .
.” (Mot. to Stay at 25).
rule, an appeal does not automatically stay the enforcement
of a judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62. Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 8 permits a party to apply to the
district court for “a stay of the judgment or order of
a district court pending appeal.” Fed. R. App. P.
8(a)(1)(A). Rule 62(d) provides that: “If an
appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by
supersedeas bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or after
filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order
allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court
approves the bond.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). “The
purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo
while protecting the non-appealing party's rights pending
appeal.” Poplar Grove Planting & Ref. Co., Inc.
v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1190-91
(5th Cir. 1979).
because Gravitt already remitted to the Receiver and the
registry of the Court the payments required under the
Court's Contempt Order, issuing a stay would have no
effect. In other words, there is nothing to stay with respect
to the Contempt Order, because Gravitt has already executed
the requirements of the Contempt Order. What Gravitt seeks,
instead, is to undo her execution of the Contempt Order.
Gravitt does not provide any authority to support such a
request. To the contrary, courts have held that
“[s]tays issued under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d) clearly do not
have retroactive effect.” Hardwick v. Clarke,
No. CIV. S-06-672 LKK, 2010 WL 5437196, at *3 n.1 (E.D. Cal.
Dec. 27, 2010); see also Ribbens Intern., S.A. de C.V.v.
Transp. Intern. Pool, Inc., 40 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1144
(C.D. Cal. 1999) (“The absence of any reference to
retroactive extinguishment of preexisting execution efforts
in Rule 62(d), in the context of this relatively detailed
procedural scheme, further supports the conclusion that no
such effect was intended.”); Johns v. Rozet,
826 F.Supp. 565, 568 (D.D.C. 1993) (“any stay granted
at this time would not have retroactive effect upon
garnishment proceedings commenced prior to the stay.”);
Moore's Federal Practice § 62.03 (in the context of
a stay issued under Fed. Rule Civ. P 62(d), “any
execution had on the judgment before the stay becomes
effective is not automatically set aside or rendered void
even after the stay becomes effective”). Because there
is no execution to stay, Gravitt's Motion to Stay is
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sonya
Gravitt's Motion to Stay Pending Appeal  is DENIED.