Henry et al v. Rizzolo et al

Filing 373

ORDER that Defendant Fredrick Rizzolos Motion to ReconsiderOrder 352 Denying Defendants Motion 334 for Stay on Enforcement and Execution Pending Appeal from Judgment 286 , 287 re: Posting of Bond Pending Appeal 359 is granted as follows: 1. The enforcement of the Courts order awarding attorneys fees to Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000.00 286 , 287 shall be stayed pending appeal upon Defendant Fredrick Rizzolos posting of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5,000.00 with the Court; 2. Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo will post the supersedeas bond on or before May 26, 2010 and file proof of the posting with the Court; 3. The stay pending appeal shall dissolve upon Defendant Fredrick Rizzolos appeal being dismi ssed or denied or upon the Courts order awarding sanctions being overruled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Courts April 12, 2010 order 352 isvacated. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 5/12/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KIRK AND AMY HENRY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) FREDRICK RIZZOLO, aka ) RICK RIZZOLO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No. 2:08-cv-00635-PMP-GWF ORDER Motion for Reconsideration (#359) This matter is before the Court on Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo's Motion to Reconsider Order (#352) Denying Defendant's Motion (#334) for Stay on Enforcement and Execution Pending Appeal from Judgment (#286, #287) re: Posting of Bond Pending Appeal (Dkt. #359), filed April 15, 2010; Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Rick Rizzolo's Motion to Reconsider Order (#352) Denying Motion to Stay Payment of Fees and Costs Awarded under FRCP 37(a) Pending Appeal (Dkt. #360), filed April 15, 2010; and Defendant Rick Rizzolo's Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition (#360) to Defendant's Request (#359) to Reconsider Order (#352) Denying Defendant's Motion (#334) for Stay of Enforcement and Execution Pending Appeal from Judgment (#286, 287) re: Posting of Bond Pending Appeal (Dkt. #364), filed April 26, 2010. Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo requests that this Court reconsider its April 12, 2010 order denying Defendant's motion for stay of payment of attorney's fees pending appeal (Dkt. #352), and moves for this Court to grant a stay pending appeal upon Mr. Rizzolo's posting of a bond. (Dkt. #359). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c), an appellant "may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . after the filing of the notice of appeal." The stay "takes effect when the court approves the bond". Id. Based on Defendant Rizzolo's request that the Court permit the posting of a supersedeas bond, the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court will reconsider it's prior order and grant a stay upon Defendant's posting of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5,000.00 with the Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo's Motion to Reconsider Order (#352) Denying Defendant's Motion (#334) for Stay on Enforcement and Execution Pending Appeal from Judgment (#286, #287) re: Posting of Bond Pending Appeal (Dkt. #359) is granted as follows: 1. The enforcement of the Court's order awarding attorney's fees to Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000.00 (Dkt. #s 286, 287) shall be stayed pending appeal upon Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo's posting of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $5,000.00 with the Court; 2. Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo will post the supersedeas bond on or before May 26, 2010 and file proof of the posting with the Court; 3. The stay pending appeal shall dissolve upon Defendant Fredrick Rizzolo's appeal being dismissed or denied or upon the Court's order awarding sanctions being overruled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's April 12, 2010 order (Dkt. #352) is vacate d. DATED this 12th day of May, 2010. ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 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?