ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT

[Dkt. 206]

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

Presently before the court is Defendant MYPHONEFAX.COM, LLC's ("MPF") Ex Parte Application for an Order Staying Default Judgment. (Dkt. 206.) The court assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts of this case, which have been set forth in previous Orders. (See Dkts. 32, 103, 169, 196.) As relevant here, on August 31, 2016, the court granted an Application for Entry of Default against several defendants in this case, including MPF. (Dkt. 119.) On December 15, 2016, the court granted Plaintiff's Motion for entry of a Default Judgment as to MPF and several other defaulting defendants. (Dkt. 196.) Shortly after the entry of default judgment, MPF made its first appearance in this case and filed an ex parte application to stay the default judgment pending resolution of its Motion to Vacate Default Judgment. (See Dkts. 206, 212.)

MPF has not identified the precise basis for its stay application but it has since filed a Motion to Vacate under Rule 60. (Dkt. 212.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) provides that "[o]n appropriate terms for the opposing party's security, the court may stay the execution of a judgment—or any proceedings to enforce it—pending disposition of any of the following motions: . . . under Rule 60, for relief from a judgment or order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)(4). "As the term `may' denotes, the decision whether or not to grant a stay is within the Court's discretion." United States v. Moyer, No. C 07-00510 SBA, 2008 WL 3478063, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008) (citing U.S. for Use & Benefit of Larkin v. Platt Contracting Co., 324 F.2d 95 (1st Cir. 1963)). Although the Ninth Circuit has not "expressly considered what factors should be used to determine whether or not a stay would be appropriate under Rule 62(b)," some courts have applied the rule for granting stays pending appeal under Rule 62(c). See, e.g., Fredianelli v. Jenkins, No. C-11-3232 EMC, 2013 WL 5934988, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013); Moyers, 2008 WL 3478063, at *6. In determining whether to grant a Rule 62(c) stay, courts consider:

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

The court finds that MPF has satisfied its burden for securing a stay while the court addresses the pending Motion to Vacate. MPF's ex parte application has set forth several arguments for why it may not have been properly served in this case. Given that, "a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over the parties is void," Thomas P. Gonzalez Corp. v. Consejo Nacional De Produccion De Costa Rica, 614 F.2d 1247, 1255 (9th Cir. 1980), the court believes a brief stay is warranted while the parties arguments are more closely examined by the court. Further, MPF has established that it may be irreparably injured absent a stay given the scope of the injunction and the size of the judgment.

The only remaining question is whether to require some form of security as a condition of the stay. "Because Rule 62(b) is intended to preserve the status quo while protecting the prevailing party's interest in the judgment, a stay of judgment usually requires a bond." Fredianelli, 2013 WL 5934988, at *1 (internal quotations and citations omitted). At the same time, "The district court has the discretion to issue an unsecured stay in unusual circumstances where the granting of the stay will not `unduly endanger the judgment creditor's interest in ultimate recovery.'" Sanchez v. California Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., No. 1:12-CV-01835-SAB, 2015 WL 4253862, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 13, 2015) (quoting Fed. Prescription Serv., Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n, 636 F.2d 755, 760 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). At bottom, "Rule 62(b) indicates that courts have flexibility in assessing adequate security." Id. Given the short duration of the stay, the court believes that a bond for the full amount of the judgment plus interest is not warranted in this case. However, the court will condition the bond on "appropriate terms" so as to ensure j2's "security."

The court hereby GRANTS MPF's Ex Parte Application for a Stay of Default Judgment. As a condition of the stay, MPF is required to a post a bond no later than January 6, 2017 in the amount $500,000.00. If MPF fails to post the bond by January 6, 2017, the stay shall automatically be lifted. Further, during the pendency of the stay, MPF is prohibited from using its assets other than in the ordinary course of business and to pay reasonable attorneys' fees. Any use or transfer of assets, other than for these expressly allowed purposes, may result in sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.