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)

Download PDF
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

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?