Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04068/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04068-35/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:0401 Labor Management Disclosure Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH GLASS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-4068 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

TO REQUIRE UNSUCCESSFUL

OBJECTORS TO POST APPELLATE

BOND; VACATING HEARING

(Docket No. 289)

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ “Motion to Require Unsuccessful Objectors to Post

Appellate Bond,” filed May 4, 2007, by which motion plaintiffs seek an order requiring

appellants Anthony D’Aria (“D’Aria”), Marty Evans (“Evans”), and Shrenik Bavishi

(“Bavishi”) to jointly post a bond in the amount of $1.5 million for the purpose of ensuring

their “ability to pay the Ninth Circuit’s anticipated awards against them of double costs,

fees, and damages under Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1912, for pursuing frivolous

appeals from this Court’s denial of their challenges to the parties’ class action settlement in

this action.” (See Motion at 1:12-15.) D’Aria and Evans have separately filed oppositions

to the motion; Bavishi has filed “objections” to the motion. Plaintiffs have filed a reply. 

Having considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

finds the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and

hereby VACATES the June 15, 2007 hearing.

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 329 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Assuming, arguendo, a district court may require the posting of an appellate bond to

ensure payment of an award under Rule 38, the Court finds plaintiffs have not

demonstrated the Court of Appeals is likely to find the appeals to be frivolous. See, e.g.,

Young v. New Process Steel, LP, 419 F.3d 1201, 1207-08 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding district

court lacks discretion to require posting of appellate bond unless court determines appeal is

“likely to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation”); In re Heritage Bond Litigation,

2005 WL 2401111 at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (requiring appellate bond where “high probability”

appeals would be denied as frivolous).

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion is hereby DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 289.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2007 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04068-MMC Document 329 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2