Integon Preferred Insurance Company vs Isztojka

Filing 189

ORDER signed by District Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 8/1/11, ORDERING that the Motion for Approval of Its Supersedeas Bond 159 is GRANTED, and the Supersedeas Bond appended to the motion, amended as provided in this order, is APPROVED. (Kastilahn, A)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTEGON PREFERRED INSURANCE
CO.
Plaintiff,

No. 2:07-cv-00526-TMB
ORDER
[Re: Motion at Docket No. 159]

vs.
SUSANA ISZTOJKA, d/b/a California
Gold Star Hauling,
Defendant.
FRANCESCA EISENBRANDT; CONNIE
EISENBRANDT; and SCOTT
EISENBRANDT,
Intervenors.
At Docket No. 159 Plaintiff Integon Preferred Insurance Co. (“Integon”) filed a Motion
for Approval of Its Supersedeas Bond. Intervenor’s Francesca Eisenbrandt, Connie Eisenbrandt,
and Scott Eisenbrandt have opposed the motion, and Integon has replied. At Docket No. 185
Integon has moved for a ruling on its motion at Docket No. 159. Intervenor’s have opposed that
request, and Integon has replied. This matter having been fully briefed, the Court finds that oral
argument would not be helpful in deciding the motion. The motion is submitted on the moving
and opposing papers.
In their latest opposition, Intervenor’s contend that, because an appeal has been filed, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to approve the bond. Intervenor’s are incorrect. The filing of a notice of
appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction over those aspects of the case that are the subject of

the appeal.1/ A district court, however, retains jurisdiction over ancillary matters.2/ Among those
ancillary matters over which a district court retains jurisdiction is a motion for a stay pending the
appeal, including the approval of a supersedeas bond.3/
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a stay of the enforcement of a judgment is
automatic upon the filing of a supersedeas bond approved by the court.4/ The amount of the bond
required is within the broad discretion of the district court.5/ In this case, the full amount of the
judgment, including prejudgment interest and costs, is approximately $1,040,000. Accordingly,
the Court finds that a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1,100,000 is adequate. The Court
notes, however, that the bond attached to the motion reflects it undertakes payment that “Plaintiff
will pay to Defendant.” That provision is incorrect and must be amended to read “Plaintiff will
pay to the Intervenors.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the Motion for Approval of Its Supersedeas
Bond at Docket no. 159 is GRANTED, and the Supersedeas Bond appended to the motion,
amended as provided herein above, is APPROVED.
Dated: August 1, 2011
s/ Timothy M. Burgess
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
United States District Judge

1/

Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982).

2/

See United Energy Owners v. United Energy Mgmt, 837 F.2d 356, 358 (9th Cir.1988)

3/

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

4/

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).

5/

See Pacific Reinsurance Mgmnt. Corp. v. Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019,
1027 (9th Cir. 1991).
ORDER [Re: Motion at Docket No. 159]

2