Filed: Aug. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2014
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. The court previously entered judgment herein, in favor of plaintiff Michael Davis, in the amount of $250.00 in statutory damages, $35,813.30 in attorney's fees, and $1,923.15 in costs, for a total of $37,986.45. (ECF Nos. 102, 106.) Defendant Hollins Law has since appealed the judgment (as well as the court's previous denial of its motion for summary judgment) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 107-109.) Defendant now appli
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. The court previously entered judgment herein, in favor of plaintiff Michael Davis, in the amount of $250.00 in statutory damages, $35,813.30 in attorney's fees, and $1,923.15 in costs, for a total of $37,986.45. (ECF Nos. 102, 106.) Defendant Hollins Law has since appealed the judgment (as well as the court's previous denial of its motion for summary judgment) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 107-109.) Defendant now applie..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.
The court previously entered judgment herein, in favor of plaintiff Michael Davis, in the amount of $250.00 in statutory damages, $35,813.30 in attorney's fees, and $1,923.15 in costs, for a total of $37,986.45. (ECF Nos. 102, 106.) Defendant Hollins Law has since appealed the judgment (as well as the court's previous denial of its motion for summary judgment) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF Nos. 107-109.)
Defendant now applies for a stay in the execution of the judgment. Specifically, it seeks an order (i) approving deposit of 125% of the amount of the judgment, or $47,483.07, with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and (ii) directing the Clerk of the Court to release to plaintiff's counsel sufficient funds to satisfy any portion of the judgment that is affirmed on appeal. (ECF No. 112.)
"If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond. . . . The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond." Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). "The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo while protecting the non-appealing party's rights pending appeal." Poplar Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1190-91 (5th Cir. 1979). Local Rule 151(d) provides that "a supersedeas bond shall be 125 percent of the amount of the judgment unless the Court otherwise orders." Finally, post-judgment interest may be available to the plaintiff after appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.
The court notes that, rather than posting a bond, defendant seeks to make a cash deposit with the Clerk of the Court. This is permissible under Local Rule 150(a), which provides that "Leave of court is hereby granted . . . in all instances in which money is deposited in lieu of filing a bond. . . ."
Having reviewed defendant's application, and in light of the foregoing, the court hereby orders as follows:
[1] Upon the Clerk of the Court's receipt of defendant's cash deposit of $47,483.07, execution of the judgment herein is STAYED, pending resolution of the appeal.
[2] Upon resolution of the appeal, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to release sufficient funds from the cash deposit to plaintiff to satisfy the judgment herein, including any post-judgment interest allowable by law, and to return the remaining balance, if any, to defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
