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)

Download PDF
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?