Yue v. Chordiant Software, Inc., et al

Filing 591

ORDER APPROVING DEPOSIT; STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT re 586 Proposed Order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Request and stays execution of the Judgment pending appeal. The Clerk of Court shall deposit the cashier check and hold on to the funds subject to further order of the Court. Signed by Judge James Ware on 11/16/2010. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2010)

Yue v. Chordiant Software, Inc., et al

Doc. 591

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Netbula, LLC, et al., v. Plaintiffs, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 08-00019 JW ORDER APPROVING DEPOSIT; STAYING ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Chordiant Software, Inc., Defendant. /

Presently before the Court is Defendant's Request for a Proposed Order Approving Deposit in Lieu of Supsersedeas Bond. (hereafter, "Request," Docket Item No. 586.) Plaintiffs filed Objections to Defendant's Request. (Docket Item No. 587.) On August 9, 2010, the Court entered Judgment against Defendant in the amount of $1,426,450.00. (hereafter, "Judgment," Docket Item No. 543.) The Judgment provided that payment was due 60 business days after entry of the Judgment. (Id.) On November 12, 2010, the Court granted Defendant's Motion for Administrative Relief to Set Supsersedeas Bond Amount and ordered Defendant to post a bond for 125% of the value of the Judgment and a proposed Order for a Stay in Execution. (hereafter, "November 12 Order," Docket Item No. 582.) On November 15, 2010, Defendant deposited a cashier's check with the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $1,843,457.80 pursuant to the Court's November 12 Order. (Docket Item No. 589.) Upon review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that Defendant's deposit of a cashier's check is the functional equivalent to posting a supersedeas bond. See, e.g., Lynch v. Sease, No. 6:03-479-DCR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59741, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 22, 2006) (granting

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

motion for approval of a cashier's check which "act[ed] as a supersedeas bond" and finding that "the posting of the cashier's check" provides a prevailing party "with sufficient surety until such time as the appeal is completed"). Moreover, Plaintiffs do not claim any prejudice from Defendant's posting of a cashier's check. Plaintiff's reliance on Civil Local Rule 7(b) is misplaced, as Defendant's Request was in support of a fully-noticed Motion previously filed with the Court. (Docket Item No. 577.) Local Rule 65.1 is also inapplicable, as it only deals with the qualifications of a "surety," whereas Defendant deposited cash. See Civ. L.R. 65. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Request and stays execution of the Judgment pending appeal. The Clerk of Court shall deposit the cashier check and hold on to the funds subject to further order of the Court.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Dated: November 17, 2010 JAMES WARE United States District Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Albert L. Sieber [e-mail] Antonio Luis Cortes [e-mail] David M. Lacy Kusters [e-mail] Jedediah Wakefield [e-mail] Laurence F. Pulgram [e-mail] Liwen Arius Mah [e-mail] Mary Elizabeth Milionis [e-mail] Peter Michael Shimamoto [e-mail] Peter Wayne Ross [e-mail] Ryan Jared Marton [e-mail]

Dated: November 17, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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