Gatx/Airlog Company, et al v. Evergreen Intl, et al

Filing 2271

ORDER RE: SUPERSEDEAS BOND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/29/2013. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

KALITTA AIR, LLC,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER RE:
SUPERSEDEAS BOND

v.
CENTRAL TEXAS AIRBORNE SYSTEMS,
et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

No. C 96-2494 CW

________________________________/

11
On December 5, 2012, this Court granted in part Plaintiff

12
13

Kalitta Air’s motion for review of the Clerk’s notice of taxable

14

costs and granted Plaintiff’s request to stay collection of costs

15

pending the outcome of its appeal.

16

post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $311,018.19, fifty

17

percent of the taxable costs.

The Court ordered Plaintiff to

Plaintiff has now filed a motion for approval of supersedeas

18
19

bond.

Defendant Central Texas Airborne Systems opposes.

As

20

Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s proposed bond does not include

21

an unequivocal promise to pay, list the conditions for payment, or

22

provide a time frame for payment.

23

simply refers to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and Local

24

Rule 65.1-1.

25

federal statute or rule “defines the conditions that must occur to

26

trigger an appellant’s obligation under a supersedeas bond.”

27

Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Atlas Machine & Iron Works, Inc., 803

28

F.2d 794, 798 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing Moore v. Townsend, 577 F.2d

Plaintiff’s proposed bond

However, neither of those rules, nor any other

1

424, 426 n.5 (7th Cir. 1978)).

2

appellant’s liability is governed by the terms of the bond

3

itself.”

4

Inc., 307 F.2d 685, 688 (5th Cir. 1962)).

5

Therefore, “the extent of the

Id. (citing Aviation Credit Corp. v. Conner Air Lines,

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Approval

6

of Supersedeas Bond.

7

proposed bond that unequivocally binds the surety to pay any

8

amount that may be awarded to Defendant, up to $311,018.19, unless

9

within seven days of the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming or

Docket No. 2265.

Plaintiff shall submit a

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

modifying the judgment or dismissing the appeal, Plaintiff

11

satisfies the judgment in full, including any additional costs or

12

interest awarded.

13

The Court's grant of Plaintiff's request to stay the

14

collection of costs pending appeal was premised on the posting of

15

a supersedeas bond.

16

that conforms to this order within twenty-one days of the date of

17

this order, the stay will be lifted.

If Plaintiff does not submit a proposed bond

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: 1/29/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2