Campbell v. PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP

Filing 453

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 07/08/09 ORDERING no bond is required. (Streeter, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 v. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 On March 11, 2009, this court granted the plaintiff class's motion for summary adjudication as to the issue of class members' exemption from California wage and hour law. Campbell v. PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP, a Limited Liability Partnership;, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendant. / ORDER JASON CAMPBELL and SARAH SOBEK, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,, NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1166 (E.D. Cal. 2009). This court, acting sua sponte, certified that order for Id. at 1186. The Ninth Circuit has granted Defendant has

interlocutory appeal.

defendant's petition for permission to appeal.

contacted the court to inquire whether a cost bond will be set for 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

the appeal. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 provides in relevant part that, "[i]n a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal." The

federal rules do not provide explicit guidance as to when a bond should be posted. Here, plaintiffs have not requested such a bond. Additionally, the court has already determined that this case presents a close question such that an appeal is warranted. See Fleury v. Richemont North America, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88166 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) (noting that, absent guidance from the Rules or the Ninth Circuit, other courts have imposed bonds when appeals are meritless). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 8, 2009. Accordingly, no bond is required.

2