Sunday's Child, LLC et al v. Irongate Azrep BW LLC et al

Filing 345

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REQUIRE POSTING OF BOND PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 65.1 re: 340 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 7/16/2020. (jo)

Case 1:13-cv-00502-DKW-WRP Document 345 Filed 07/16/20 Page 1 of 3
6093

PageID #:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

SUNDAY’S CHILD, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-00502 DKW-WRP

Plaintiffs,
vs.
IRONGATE AZREP BW LLC,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO REQUIRE POSTING
OF BOND PURSUANT TO LOCAL
RULE 65.11

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant Irongate Azrep BW
LLC’s motion to require posting of a bond pursuant to Local Rule 65.1 (“motion
for bond”). Defendant seeks an order requiring Plaintiffs to post a bond of
$968,638.13, which Defendant asserts is the amount necessary to satisfy 1.5 times
the value of its counterclaim plus anticipated attorney’s fees. As more fully set
forth below, the motion for bond is DENIED because there is no legal authority
that would permit the Court to order the bond sought.

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court elects to decide this matter without a hearing.

Case 1:13-cv-00502-DKW-WRP Document 345 Filed 07/16/20 Page 2 of 3
6094

PageID #:

DISCUSSION2
Citing Local Rule 65.1, as well as a number of assorted procedural rules,
statutory provisions, cases, and the Court’s “inherent power,” Defendant asserts
that this Court has authority to require the posting of a bond amounting to 1.5
times the value of its counterclaim plus anticipated attorney’s fees, pending the
October 2020 trial on Plaintiffs’ claims. None of the purported authorities,
however, apply to the situation here. Starting with Local Rule 65.1, at best, that
rule permits ordering “security for costs….”3 The vast majority of the bond
amount sought by Defendant, however, does not represent costs. Instead, it is a
multiple of the value Defendant places on its counterclaim. Cf. Black’s Law
Dictionary 423 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “legal costs” as “[a]ttorney’s fees and
other expenditures related to a lawsuit.”). As for the other procedural rules and
state statutory provisions cited, none of them apply in the context presented here,
as Defendant’s request does not involve security for an injunction, the stay of a
judgment, a supersedeas bond, a mechanic’s lien, an attachment bond, a “vexatious
litigant” under the applicable statute, or a bail bond. See Dkt. No. 340-1 at 12.

2

The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the background of this case.
The Court need not and, thus, does not address whether Local Rule 65.1 can be utilized to
obtain a bond outside of the context of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 motion for an
injunction.
3

2

Case 1:13-cv-00502-DKW-WRP Document 345 Filed 07/16/20 Page 3 of 3
6095

PageID #:

This leaves Defendant’s assertion that the Court has “inherent power” to order the
posting of a bond. While that may be true, as Defendant acknowledges, the Ninth
Circuit has explained that a court should “typically follow the forum state’s
practice.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, Defendant cites to no “practice” of the
State of Hawai‘i that would permit this Court to order the posting of the bond
sought through the instant motion. Finally, Defendant also asks for an order
requiring Plaintiffs to “immediately satisfy the Judgment” on Defendant’s
counterclaim, again with the October 2020 trial on Plaintiffs’ remanded claims
remaining. Id. at 11. However, as with the request for posting of a bond, this
request too is devoid of legal authority and, thus, is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion for bond, Dkt. No. 340,
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 16, 2020 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Sunday's Child, LLC, et al v. Irongate Azrep BW LLC, Civil No. 13-00502 DKW-WRP; ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REQUIRE POSTING OF BOND PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 65.1

3