Teece v. Kuwait Finance House (Bahrain) B.S.C. et al
Filing
85
Order Approving Supersedeas Bond. Signed by Judge Alsup on 8/1/2014. (whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
DAVID JOHN TEECE,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
v.
KUWAIT FINANCE HOUSE (BAHRAIN)
B.S.C., ABDULHAKEEM AL-KHAYYAT,
ADNAN MALIK, and PAUL MERCER,
Case No.: 3:13-CV-03603-WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING
SUPERSEDEAS BOND PURSUANT TO
RULE 62 OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SUPERSEDEAS BOND
PURSUANT TO RULE 62 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
CASE NO.: 3:13-CV-03603-WHA
1
On July 10, 2014, the Court entered the Order Granting Attorney’s Fees and Costs in the above-
2
captioned action against Plaintiff David John Teece in the amount of $233,111.54 (Dkt. No. 80). On
3
July 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from this Order (Dkt. No. 81). Pursuant to Rule 62 of the
4
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has obtained a valid supersedeas bond (attached hereto as
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Exhibit A) in the amount of $349,667.31, equaling 150% of the total amount of the Order. Thus, the
bond is sufficient to ensure that Plaintiff’s obligations to Defendants under the Order will be met if his
appeal of the Order is not successful.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the signed supersedeas bond of the Plaintiff is
approved. The Clerk is directed to enter the supersedeas bond as attached.
It is HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that execution of the Order is stayed pending appeal.
12
13
14
Dated: August 1
, 2014
15
______________________________
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING SUPERSEDEAS BOND
PURSUANT TO RULE 62 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
CASE NO.: 3:13-CV-03603-WHA
EXHIBIT A
Alston & Bird LLP
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?