Jardine v. One Beacon Insurance

Filing 88

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 82 Motion for Bond.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

JAMES JARDINE,

10
For the Northern District of California

9

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, and
DOES 1 through 50,

13
14

Defendants.

15
16

JAMES JARDINE,

17

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19
EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 50,

20
21

Defendants.

22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 10-3335
consolidated for
purposes with:
Case No. 10-3319
Case No. 10-3335
Case No. 10-3336

SC,
all
SC,
SC, and
SC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
COST BOND

23
24

I.

INTRODUCTION

25

Defendant Employers Fire Insurance Company ("Employers") now

26

moves for a cost bond against Plaintiff James Jardine ("Jardine")

27

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP") 7 and Civil

28

Local Rule ("Civ. L.R.") 65.1-1(a).

ECF No. 82 ("Bond Mot.").

The

1

Motion is fully briefed.

ECF Nos. 83 ("Opp'n"), 86 ("Reply").

2

Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral

3

The

argument.

4
5

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court concludes that Employers' motion for a cost bond

6
7

lacks merit.

The Court previously denied Employers' Motion for

8

Attorney Fees without prejudice on the ground that Jardine's

9

pending appeal in this matter "may substantially affect Employers'

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

eligibility to recover attorney's fees."

ECF No. 81 ("Atty. Fees

11

Order") at 2.

12

issues that it expressly declined to decide until after the

13

resolution of Jardine's appeal.

14

instant motion and Employers' previous Motion for Attorney Fees is

15

the issue of whether Employers is entitled to recover attorney fees

16

under Section 13 of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the

17

parties.

18

decide the issue of attorney fees until the Ninth Circuit reaches a

19

decision on Jardine's appeal.

Now Employers is again asking the Court to rule on

For example, central to both the

The Court stands by its previous order and declines to

The Court also notes that the authority relied upon by

20
21

Employers gives the Court discretion to grant or deny a request for

22

bond.

23

file a bond" (emphasis added)); Civ. L.R. 65.1-1(a) ("the Court may

24

require any party to furnish security for costs" (emphasis added)).

25

In its discretion, the Court finds that a bond would be

26

inappropriate under the circumstances.

27

asking that the Court require Jardine to post a $119,419.11 bond

28

before he can fully prosecute his appeal.

See FRAP 7 ("the district court may require an appellant to

2

Employers is effectively

See Bond Mot. at 7.

1

This would be a burdensome requirement for many appellants to meet.

2

The Court finds it would be especially burdensome for an appellant,

3

such as Jardine, who claims that an insurer failed to pay out all

4

that was due under its policy.

5
6
7
8

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Employers' Motion
for a Cost Bond.

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: May 30, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3