Internmatch, Inc. v. Nxtbigthing, LLC et al

Filing 175

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO STAY ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION OF FEE AWARD 167 . Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 31, 2016.(jst)(Filed on 7/31/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
INTERNMATCH, INC.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-05438-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
NXTBIGTHING, LLC, et al.,

10

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST TO STAY ENFORCEMENT
AND COLLECTION OF FEE AWARD
Re: Dkt. No. 167

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
The Court has not entered judgment in this case, using a form of judgment to which both

13
14

parties agreed. See ECF Nos. 165, 167, 168.

15

The Court writes separately to address the Defendants’ request that the Court stay

16

enforcement of the $69,233.45 fee award contained in judgment pending the resolution of

17

Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s summary judgment order. ECF Nos. 164 (notice of appeal),

18

167 at 2 (request). The Court cannot grant the request because Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of

19

Civil Procedure provides that an appellant must post a supersedeas bond to stay the execution of a

20

final judgment. 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d) (“If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by

21

supersedeas bond . . . [t]he stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.”). Defendant has

22

made no argument as to why the Court should waive the bond requirement here. See Cotton ex

23

rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, Cal., 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1028-29 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (holding that

24

“[t]he appellant has the burden to ‘objectively demonstrate’ the reasons for departing from the

25
26
27
28

1

“Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 provides that a supersedeas bond may be used to
stay execution of a judgment pending appeal, the court has discretion to allow other forms of
judgment guarantee.” Int'l Telemeter Corp. v. Hamlin Int'l Corp., 754 F.2d 1492, 1495 (9th Cir.
1985). Defendants do not propose any alternative form of judgment guarantee.

1

usual requirement of a full supersedeas bond” and “find[ing] that Defendants have failed to make

2

a persuasive showing that a waiver of the bond requirement is warranted in this case”).

3

Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant’s request.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 31, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2