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