OPINION & ORDER

[Resolving Doc. 961]

JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.

Interminable: an adjective meaning "having or seeming to have no end." Also, this case.

After a jury found Defendants liable, the Court ordered them to pay Plaintiffs roughly $4.8 million in damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.1 On October 11, 2018, Defendants moved to stay the enforcement of that judgment pending appeal and offered a $4.9 million supersedeas bond in support.2

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the Court to grant Defendants' stay if they provide a satisfactory supersedeas bond.3 Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' bond is deficient as it does not cover: (i) anticipated post-judgment interest, (ii) anticipated appellate attorneys' fees, and (iii) certain pre-judgment attorneys' fees.4 Thus, they ask Defendants to increase the bond by $425,477.5

The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo during an appeal. This purpose would be frustrated if the bond failed to account for the delay to Plaintiffs' relief or the additional litigation efforts needed to secure that relief. As such, the bond should include anticipated appellate attorneys' fees and postjudgment interest to protect Plaintiffs' current position.6 And, for similar reasons, the bond should include the requested pre-judgment attorneys' fees, which Plaintiffs incurred after they moved for attorneys' fees, but before judgment. Defendants do not seriously dispute Plaintiffs' calculations and the Court believes they are reasonable. Thus, Defendants' supersedeas bond should be in the amount of $5,250,000.00.

Plaintiffs also argue that all three Defendants, rather than just Commerce Energy, Inc., must be named in the bond.7 The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a supersedeas bond that names only one Defendant is insufficiently secure.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to stay, so long as they provide a supersedeas bond for $5,250,000.00

IT IS SO ORDERED.