Service Employees International Union, CTW/CLC et al v. SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West et al

Filing 784

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL by Judge Alsup denying 776 Motion to Stay (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2010)

Service Employees International Union, CTW/CLC et al v. SEIU United Healthcare Workers-West et al

Doc. 784

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAL ROSSELLI, et al., Defendants. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-00404 WHA

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF THE JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL

Defendants move to stay execution of judgment pending appeal (Dkt. No. 776). They initially argue that they are entitled as a matter of right to such a stay pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), which states, "If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond." Defendants have not posted a bond, so Rule 62(d) does not apply. Defendants alternatively seek approval to substitute other forms of security in lieu of a supersedeas bond. They cite decisions for the principle that district courts have the power to approve of such alternatives. But they give no specific reasons for approving such an arrangement here (apart from general statements that "it would be an undue financial burden . . . [to] post a full supersedeas bond" (Br. 3)). And they give no specific account of what such alternative security would be for each of the defendants (apart from the general statement that "the security may be in the form of cash, letters of credit, real property, and/or other types of

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

assets approved by the Court" (Br. 4)). Such vague intimations fall far short of the required showing for court approval of an alternative arrangement in lieu of the bond requirement. This order will not approve a stay of execution without a bond or any good reason why the bond requirement should be waived. Defendants' motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2