Stonecrest Managers, Inc. v. Schreffler et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
STONECREST MANAGERS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
LISA K. SCHREFFLER and
CITIGROUP, INC., AS SUCCESSOR-IN-
INTEREST TO ARGENT MORTGAGE
COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants.
No. 22-cv-11167-PGL
DENIAL OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER ON APPEAL BOND
LEVENSON, U.S.M.J.
Defendant Lisa K. Schreffler has filed a motion (Docket No. 147) for reconsideration of
my Order (Docket No. 146),1 which allowed in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to
require Defendant to post an appeal bond.
In seeking reconsideration, Defendant reiterates the same arguments she previously
advanced in her Rule 60(b) motion. Docket No. 134. I reject those arguments for the reasons set
forth in my written order of September 2, 2025 (Docket No. 137), which denied Defendant’s
60(b) motion.
1 I have docketed a corrected version of my order (Docket No. 146), which emends two instances
in which I inadvertently transposed “Plaintiff” and “Defendant.”
Case 1:22-cv-11167-PGL Document 149 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Notably, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the bond order contains no
suggestion that the amount of the required bond ($5,000) is unduly burdensome. Nor does
Defendant provide any financial information to suggest that requiring a $5,000 bond poses a
financial hardship.
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order on appeal bond
is DENIED.
/s/ Paul G. Levenson
Paul G. Levenson
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: December 5, 2025
Case 1:22-cv-11167-PGL Document 149 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 2