DuPont Retirement Class Action – Defendants’ Motions to Stay Denied
Cockerill, et al. v. Corteva, Inc. DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, et al. (Case No. 21-cv-03966-MMB, E.D. Pa.).
Defendants’ First Motion for a Stay of Enforcement – DENIED.
On June 25, 2025, defendants filed a motion for stay of enforcement of the district court’s final judgment, pending appeal. Plaintiffs response to this motion was filed on July 2, 2025. Defendants filed a reply on July 3, 2025, stating their intention to seek a stay from the Third Circuit if Judge Baylson denied their motion for a stay. On July 11, 2025, Judge Baylson issued a Memorandum Re: Motion to Stay, writing a thirteen page opinion outlining his reasoning for denying defendants’ requested stay, and holding that,
In short, Defendants have not demonstrated that enforcement of the judgment during appeal would likely result in irreparable harm. Their concerns are either speculative or amount to routine financial exposure that does not meet the Third Circuit’s threshold for this “extraordinary remedy.”
Judge Baylson did stay enforcement of the Final Judgment for a short period of time, allowing Defendants ten (10) days to seek a stay of enforcement from the Third Circuit.
Defendants’ Second Motion for a Stay of Enforcement – DENIED.
As permitted by the federal rules, on July 15, 2025 defendants filed a second motion to stay enforcement of the Final Judgment, this time asking the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule the district court’s denial of a stay. Defendants asked that this motion be heard on an expedited basis. On July 16th, the Third Circuit issued an order that Plaintiffs’ response be filed by July 17th at noon. Late in the afternoon on July 17th, the Third Circuit denied Defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal. As per the district court’s Final Judgment the parties are to work with Special Master Richard Bazelon to ensure the “prompt and effective implementation” of the Court’s Order.
Defendants have appealed both the district court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and the Final Judgment.
