LEGG, LLC v. Unni

Filing 92

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 83 Defendant's Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Through Appeal and Approval of Proposed Supersedeas Bond (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LECG, LLC, a California limited liability
company,

No. C-13-0639 EMC

9
Plaintiff,
v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
SANJAY UNNI, an Individual,
12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
OF JUDGMENT THROUGH APPEAL
AND APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS
BOND

SANJAY UNNI, an Individual,

15
16
17

(Docket No. 83)

Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
LECG, LLC, a California limited liability
company,

18
19

Counter-Defendant.
___________________________________/

20
21

On May 23, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and entered a

22

judgment against Defendant Sanjay Unni (“Unni”) in the amount of $366,790. See generally Order,

23

Dkt. No. 77; Judgment in a Civil Case, Dkt. No. 78. Unni now requests that the Court, pursuant to

24

Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (1) order a stay of execution of judgment

25

through appeal and (2) approve its supersedeas bond. Defendant’s Motion for Stay (“Motion”), Dkt.

26

No. 83, 1:12-17. The motion will be GRANTED.

27
28

1
2
3

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d)

4

A party taking an appeal from a District Court in the federal system is entitled to a stay of a

5

money judgment “as a matter of right” by posting a bond in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil

6

Procedure 62(d). United States v. Boyce, 148 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1096 (S.D. Cal. 2001); see also

7

Ryan v. Editions Ltd. West, Inc., No. 06-cv-04812-PSG, 2013 WL 417814 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013)

8

(“‘[A]n appellant may obtain a stay as a matter of right by posting a supersedeas bond acceptable to

9

the court.’” (quoting Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977)).
Rule 62(d), titled “Stay with Bond on Appeal” states, “[i]f an appeal is taken, the appellant may

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

obtain a stay by supersedeas bond, except in an action described in Rule 62(a)(1) or (2). The bond

12

may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the

13

appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). Rule 62(a)

14

states that “(1) an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or a receivership; or

15

(2) a judgment or order that directs an accounting in an action for patent infringement” should not be

16

“stayed after being entered, even if an appeal is taken.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a).

17

This case does not involve (1) an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an

18

injunction or a receivership or (2) a judgment or order that directs an accounting in an action for

19

patent infringement. Plaintiff LECG, LLC filed suit against Unni alleging breach of contract and

20

unjust enrichment related to an employment agreement. Order at 1:25-26. The Court ordered a

21

solely monetary judgment. Order at 17:2-3. Thus, this case does not fall under either Rule 62(a)

22

exception. Further, the bond was given on June 19, 2014, after Unni filed the notice of appeal on

23

June 13, 2014. Notice of Appeal, Dkt. No. 81. Accordingly, the stay takes effect when the Court

24

approves the bond.

25

B.

26

Validity of Supersedeas Bond
The Northern District’s Civil Local Rules allow the Court to use its discretion in deciding

27

whether to approve a supersedeas bond. N.D. Cal. L. R. 65.1-1; see also Finley v. Hartford Life &

28

Acc. Ins. Co., C-06-6247 CW, 2010 WL 2762737, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2010) (“District courts

2

1

have inherent discretionary authority . . . in setting the amount of a supersedeas bond.” (citation

2

omitted)). Nonetheless, “[g]enerally, district courts should attempt to achieve full satisfaction of a

3

judgment in setting a supersedeas bond.” Finley, 2010 WL 2762737, at *2. In the present case,

4

Unni has posted a valid supersedeas bond in the amount of $550,185, or 150% of the judgment.

5

Motion, Exh. 1,2. Accordingly, the Court will approve Unni's supersedeas bond.

6
7
8

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Unni’s Motion, and approves the
supersedeas bond and orders the execution of judgment in this action stayed through appeal.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Dated: July 25, 2014.

13

_________________________________

14

EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

3