Irigaray Dairy et al v. Dairy Employees Union Local No. 17 Christian Labor Association of the United States of America Pension Trust

Filing 137

Order Denying, Without Prejudice, Request For Approval Of Supersedas Bond (ECF No. 136), signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/22/2016. (Yu, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

IRIGARAY DAIRY, CHARLES VAN DER
KOOI DAIRY, HENRY JONGSMA & SON
DAIRY , and COW-WEST NORTH STAR
DAIRY,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Case No. 1:13-cv-01112-MJS
ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, REQUEST FOR
APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDAS BOND

Plaintiffs,
(ECF Nos. 136)
v.
DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO.
17 CHRISTIAN LABOR ASSOCIATION
OF THE UNIDED STATE OF AMERICA
PENSION TRUST, and BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE DAIRY
EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 17
CHRISTIAN LABOR ASSOCIATION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PENSION TRUST,
Defendants.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a request for approval of a signed supersedeas
bond. (ECF No. 136.) The request is denied without prejudice to the filing of a bond in
an amount equal to 125 percent of the judgment.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), “an appellant may obtain a stay as
a matter of right by posting a supersedeas bond acceptable to the court.” In re
Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977); see also American

1 Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3
2 (1966) ([I]t seems to be accepted that a party taking an appeal from the District Court is
3 entitled to a stay of a money judgment as a matter of right if he posts a bond in
4 accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)”). However, district courts have inherent
5 discretionary authority in setting the nature and amount of the requisite security. See
6 Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987).
7 Plaintiffs are entitled to a stay of the judgment upon the filing of a proper supersedeas
8 bond. However, the amount of the bond filed with the Court is inadequate.
9

Local Rule 151(d) requires that a supersedeas bond be in an amount equal to

10 125 percent of the judgment unless the Court otherwise orders. Plaintiffs have
11 presented a bond in the exact amount of the judgment, $111,701.68. In order to provide
12 Defendants adequate security to cover additional amounts associated with the judgment
13 (for example, interest accrued after judgment), the Court requires Plaintiffs to provide a
14 bond in an amount of 125 percent of the judgment – $139,627.10.
15

Absent valid objection by Defendants, the Court anticipates approval of the

16 request and stay of the judgment once the enlarged bond is filed.
ORDER

17
18

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for approval of the filing of a

19 supersedeas bond is DENEID without prejudice.
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 22, 2016

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2