CRUZ ROMERO v. HOBART CORPORATION et al
Filing
173
ORDER denying 163 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 154 Motion to Stay: For the reasons stated in 172 the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that 163 plaintiff's motion is denied; it is further ORDERED that 154 def endant's motion is granted; it is further ORDERED that the June 10, 2015 judgment and proceedings to enforce it are hereby stayed on the condition that a supersedeas bond is filed by August 15, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the amount of the proposed supersedeas bond is approved. SO ORDERED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on August 6, 2015. (lcesh1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WALDIMIR ADALBERTO CRUZ
ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 11-1799 (ESH)
v.
ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP LLC,
Defendant.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff Waldimir Adalberto Cruz Romero’s Motion to Amend the
Judgment and Include Prejudgment Interest [ECF No. 163] is DENIED; it is further
ORDERED that defendant ITW Food Equipment Group’s Motion to Stay Execution of
Judgment Pending Disposition of Post-Trial Motion and Appeal and Request for Approval of
Bond Amount [ECF No. 154] is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that execution of the June 10, 2015 judgment and any proceedings to
enforce it are hereby stayed pending the disposition of defendant’s renewed Motion for
Judgment as a Matter of Law [ECF No. 166] and any appeal on the condition that a supersedeas
bond is filed by August 15, 2015; and it is further
ORDERED that the amount of the proposed supersedeas bond, $3,000,000.00, is
approved. Defendant shall submit a fully executed bond for the Court’s final approval on or
before August 15, 2015. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: August 6, 2015
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?