Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd. et al
Filing
208
ORDER denying 169 Motion To Increase Amount of Defendants' Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction re 160 Order on Motion to Stay, Order on Motion for Leave to File, 164 Notice (Other). Signed by District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr on 8/29/2014. (eef)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:14-cv-00043-MOC-DCK
CELGARD, LLC,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
Vs.
LG CHEM AMERICA, INC.
LG CHEM, LTD.,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the court on plaintiff’s Motion to Increase Amount of
Defendants’ Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction.
The court has
carefully considered the arguments of the parties and determines that the $1,000,000.00 bond
previously imposed is sufficient to secure plaintiff’s rights on the matter appealed during the
pendency of the appeal, thus providing adequate protection. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c). In addition, the
court has no reason to find that plaintiff’s potential harm during the appeal would exceed such
amount, which is precisely the same bond the court required plaintiff to post when it secured
injunctive relief. Further, the court has no reason to believe that if plaintiffs were to ultimately
prevail in this matter that defendants would be unable or unwilling to pay even a substantial final
judgment as there is no contention that such defendants are distressed or illiquid. Finally,
plaintiff failed to follow this court’s instruction as to the manner in which to seek an increase in
the bond. Order (#160) at 1. Having considered plaintiff’s motion and reviewed the pleadings,
the court enters the following Order.
1
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Increase Amount of
Defendants’ Bond Pending Their Appeal of Stayed Preliminary Injunction (#169) is DENIED.
Signed: August 29, 2014
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?