Ward v. AutoZoners, LLC

Filing 168

ORDER granting 163 Motion for Bond Defendant's Partially Unopposed Motion to Approve Supersedeas Bond, Motion to Stay Pending Appeal - The bond dated January 9, 2019, together with the rider dated February 13, 2019, in the amount of $580,000.00, is approved and execution upon the amended judgment is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 2/19/2019. (Tripp, S.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION NO. 7:15-CV-164-FL KEITH WARD, Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to approve supersedeas bond and to stay pending appeal (DE 163). In the court’s order dated February 11, 2019, the court directed defendant to show cause why the motion to approve bond and grant stay should not be denied for failure to provide full security. The court further directed defendant to either provide additional security or file a memorandum explaining why it should not be required to provide full security. On February 19, 2019, defendant filed its response, showing that a rider has been added to the appeal bond increasing the original bond from $510,000.00 to $580,000.00. Defense counsel represents that they conferred with plaintiff’s counsel, and plaintiff does not oppose defendant filing the rider increasing the bond to $580,000.00. Accordingly, defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The bond dated January 9, 2019, together with the rider dated February 13, 2019, in the amount of $580,000.00, is approved and execution upon the amended judgment is stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of February, 2019. _____________________________ LOUISE W. FLANAGAN United States District Judge

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?