Filed: Nov. 21, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2019
Summary: ORDER APPROVING AMENDED PROPOSED SUPERSEDEAS BOND (Doc. 182) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . ORDER On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc.'s ("VDL") motion to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment and approve supersedeas bond, (Doc. 175), as the proposed bond did not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 151. (Doc. 181.) The Court directed VDL to file an amended proposed bond for the Court's review and approval by
Summary: ORDER APPROVING AMENDED PROPOSED SUPERSEDEAS BOND (Doc. 182) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . ORDER On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc.'s ("VDL") motion to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment and approve supersedeas bond, (Doc. 175), as the proposed bond did not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 151. (Doc. 181.) The Court directed VDL to file an amended proposed bond for the Court's review and approval by ..
More
ORDER APPROVING AMENDED PROPOSED SUPERSEDEAS BOND
(Doc. 182)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
ORDER
On November 13, 2019, the Court issued an order denying Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc.'s ("VDL") motion to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment and approve supersedeas bond, (Doc. 175), as the proposed bond did not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 151. (Doc. 181.) The Court directed VDL to file an amended proposed bond for the Court's review and approval by no later than November 25, 2019. (Id. at 5.) On November 19, 2019, VDL filed an amended proposed bond1 in compliance with the Court's order. (Doc. 182.)
The amended proposed bond provides:
United States Fire Insurance Company, as Surety does hereby and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, undertake that the Defendants will pay to the Plaintiff or party(ies) as named by the Court a sum of One Hundred Ninety Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Dollars ($197,720) for such damages and/or costs as the Court may direct.
(Id. at 1.) The bond further provides that "[t]he surety expressly subjects itself to all applicable Federal Law" and "is in compliance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. §§ 9304-06[.]" (Id.) Finally, it states that the bond is "posted to secure a stay of enforcement of the judgment until determination of any appeal filed by VDL, or if VDL does not appeal the judgment once it becomes final, until after the time for filing a notice of appeal expires." (Id.)
The proposed language in VDL's amended bond appears to satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 151 and Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, the amended bond addresses each of the objections to the form of the bond previously raised by Plaintiff. (See Doc. 177 at 15-16.) Thus, the Court will approve the bond and stay the execution of the judgment as to VDL pending any appeal of the judgment by VDL.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc.'s amended proposed supersedeas bond, (Doc. 182), is APPROVED.
2. Pursuant to Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and according to the terms of the supersedeas bond posted on November 19, 2019, bond number 615247986, (Doc. 182), proceedings to enforce the judgment and execution of the judgment entered in this case as to Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc. are hereby STAYED pending any appeal of the judgment by Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory, Inc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
