CELGARD, LLC v. LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., 3:14-cv-00043-MOC-DCK. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140903e82
Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 29, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2014
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Defendants' Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction. The court has carefully considered the arguments of the parties and determines that the $1,000,000.00 bond previously imposed is sufficient to secure plaintiff's rights on the matter appealed during the pendency of the appeal, thus providing adequate protection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). In addition, the court
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Defendants' Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction. The court has carefully considered the arguments of the parties and determines that the $1,000,000.00 bond previously imposed is sufficient to secure plaintiff's rights on the matter appealed during the pendency of the appeal, thus providing adequate protection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). In addition, the court h..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Defendants' Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction. The court has carefully considered the arguments of the parties and determines that the $1,000,000.00 bond previously imposed is sufficient to secure plaintiff's rights on the matter appealed during the pendency of the appeal, thus providing adequate protection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). In addition, the court has no reason to find that plaintiff's potential harm during the appeal would exceed such amount, which is precisely the same bond the court required plaintiff to post when it secured injunctive relief. Further, the court has no reason to believe that if plaintiffs were to ultimately prevail in this matter that defendants would be unable or unwilling to pay even a substantial final judgment as there is no contention that such defendants are distressed or illiquid. Finally, plaintiff failed to follow this court's instruction as to the manner in which to seek an increase in the bond. Order (#160) at 1. Having considered plaintiff's motion and reviewed the pleadings, the court enters the following Order.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Defendants' Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction (#169) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
