SHAWN VAN ASDALE, et al vs INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY

Filing 370

ORDER re 361 Motion for Approval of Bond. The court agrees with the controlling Tenth Circuit authority and Plaintiffs' Objection to Application for Approval of Bond 365 is DENIED. Defendant's bond in the sum of $4,643,240.44 360 is APPROVED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. on 7/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SHAWN VAN ASDALE, an individual, )
and LENA VAN ASDALE, an individual, )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
INTERNATIONAL GAME
)
TECHNOLOGY, a Nevada corporation, )
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________)

3:04-cv-0703-RAM
ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed an Objection to Application for Approval of Bond (Doc. #365).
Defendant has Replied in Support of Application for Approval of Bond (Doc. #366).
On June 21, 2011, Defendant filed an Application for Approval of Bond (Doc. #361)
requesting that bond no. 0147946 in the amount of $4,643,240.44 (Doc. #360) be approved.
On June 22, 2011, the Clerk’s office filed the bond (Doc. #364).
In their Objection to Application for Approval of Bond (Doc. #365) Plaintiffs rely on
an unpublished district court case from the District of Colorado in which the court increased
the amount of a supercedes bond in excess of the amount of the judgment. U.S. for Use &
Benefit v. Torix Gen. Contractors (No. 07-cv-01355 (Colo. 6-6-2011).
That case seems to be in conflict with the controlling law in the Tenth Circuit which
generally holds that “. . . The purpose of requiring a supercedes bond pending appeal ‘is to
secure the judgment throughout the appeal process against the possibility of the judgment
debtor’s insolvency.’ (citations omitted) Typically, the amount of the bond matches the full

1

amount of the judgment (citations omitted).” Olcott v. Delaware Flood Co., 76 F.3d 1538,

2

1559 (10th Cir. 1996). See also, Strong v. Laubach, 443 F.3d 1297, 1299 (10th Cir. 2006).

3
4

Both the Olcott and Strong cases also recognize that although the district court has
discretion in setting a lesser amount it abuses its discretion in setting a greater amount.

5

The court agrees with the controlling Tenth Circuit authority and Plaintiffs’ Objection

6

to Application for Approval of Bond (Doc. #365) is DENIED. Defendant’s bond in the sum

7

of $4,643,240.44 (Doc. #360) is APPROVED.

8

DATED: July 20, 2011.

9
10

______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2