Graham-Sult et al v. Clainos et al
Filing
166
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 159 MOTION TO STAY AND DENYING MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
ALEXANDER GRAHAM-SULT and DAVID
GRAHAM,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
13
v.
NICHOLAS P. CLAINOS, RICHARD L.
GREENE, LINDA McCALL, GREENE
RADOVSKY MALONEY SHARE & HENNIGH
LLP, BILL GRAHAM ARCHIVES LLC,
d/b/a WOLFGANG’S VAULT, NORTON
LLC and WILLIAM E. SAGAN,
14
Defendants.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
No. C 10-4877 CW
ORDER
CONDITIONALLY
GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY AND DENYING
MOTION FOR
APPROVAL OF
SUPERSEDEAS BOND
(Docket No. 159)
15
16
________________________________/
17
18
In its March 23, 2012 order, the Court granted Defendants
19
Richard Greene, Linda McCall and Greene Radovsky Maloney Share &
20
Hennigh LLP (collectively, Greene Defendants) and Defendant
21
Nicholas P. Clainos’ motions for award of attorneys’ fees and
22
costs pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section
23
425.16, commonly known as California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit
24
Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) statute and Defendants
25
Bill Graham Archives LLC, Norton LLC and William E. Sagan’s
26
(collectively, BGA Defendants) motion for an award of attorneys’
27
fees and costs under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505.
28
Docket
The Court awarded a total of $501,180.75 in fees.1
1
No. 142.
2
Plaintiffs Alexander Graham-Sult and David Graham filed a timely
3
notice of appeal of the Court’s order on attorneys’ fees.
4
Id.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to stay execution of the fee
5
award and for approval of a $615,000 supersedeas bond.
6
oppose the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs’ proposed bond is
7
insufficient to protect them from the loss that may result from
8
the stay.
9
increased from $615,000 to $1 million, or the stay should be
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants
Defendants argue that the amount of the bond should be
denied.
11
Having considered the parties’ papers and the entire record
12
in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed $615,000
13
bond is not sufficient to protect Defendants “from the risk of a
14
later uncollectible judgment.”
15
Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988).
16
a bond in the amount of $750,000 is sufficient to protect
17
Defendants’ interest in the judgment, statutory interest, and any
18
award of fees and costs on appeal.
19
Eureka, California, 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2012)
20
(citing Christopher A. Goelz & Meredith J. Watts, California
21
Practice Guide: Ninth Circuit Civil Appellate Practice ¶ 1:168
22
(TRG 2011)) (reporting that a bond of 1.25 to 1.5 times the
23
judgment is typically required).
National Labor Relations Board v.
The Court finds that
See, e.g., Cotton v. City of
24
For the foregoing reasons, the Court conditionally GRANTS
25
Plaintiffs’ motion to stay and denies their motion for supersedeas
26
27
28
1
In a concurrently filed order, the Court grants Defendants
a total of $99,248.53 in additional “fees on fees” and reply fees.
2
1
bond.
Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiffs
2
shall post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $750,000 and
3
provide the Court with notice that they have posted such a bond.
4
Once Plaintiffs have done so, the Court will stay the case pending
5
resolution of the appeal.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Dated: 3/21/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?