Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00905/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00905-47/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ERNESTO G. LIRA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTHEW CATE,

Defendant. /

No. C 00-905 SI

ORDER STAYING ORDER AWARDING

PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND

COSTS PENDING RESOLUTION OF

NINTH CIRCUIT APPEAL

On April 23, 2010, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to stay the February 26, 2010

order , which awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs, pending the resolution of defendant’s appeal

of the September 30, 2009 Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law. Although plaintiff raised several

objections to defendant’s motion, plaintiff also stated that if defendant posted a proper supersedeas

bond, he would stipulate to a stay of the attorneys’ fees order until the conclusion of the pending appeal

of the underlying judgment. 

The Court finds that pursuant to its inherent power it is appropriate to stay the February 26, 2010

order conditioned upon defendant posting a supersedeas bond. Defendant objects to posting a bond on

the ground that CDCR’s ability to pay the fee award is “plain.” In support of this assertion, defendant

relies on the declaration of David Lewis, the Deputy Director of Fiscal Services for CDCR. Mr. Lewis

states that CDCR has an $8.6 billion budget for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, that

CDCR’s anticipated budget for FY 2010-11 is $8.8 billion, and that he is “not aware of any instance in

which the CDCR has ever failed to honor a duly entered monetary judgment, judgment for fees or

settlement.” Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 5-6. 

However, Mr. Lewis also states that CDCR has recently imposed a “hard spending freeze,” and

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 527 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 1

 See generally http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html.

2

the Court takes judicial notice of the facts that the State of California is facing a $20 billion budget

deficit, that the Governor’s proposed budget calls for reductions throughout state government, and that

during the past year the State has furloughed much of its workforce and sought to pay its contractual

and other legal obligations with vouchers.1 In addition, defendant has not made any showing that, in

lieu of posting a bond, there are procedures currently in place, such as sequestering the funds, to ensure

the payment of the fee order.

The Court also finds that it is not a hardship for defendant to post a bond. At the hearing on this

matter, defense counsel asserted that the process to post a bond would be burdensome and expensive.

However, defendant has made no factual showing that it would be burdensome or expensive for the

State to post a bond, and plaintiff has cited authority suggesting that the cost of a bond is relatively

minimal. See Lightfoot v. Walker, 797 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir. 1986) (State corrections department

required to post a bond for appeal of attorneys’ fees award; stating cost of bond usually runs 1% of bond

amount). 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for a stay, conditioned upon defendant

posting a supersedeas bond in the amount of $1.2 million, which reflects the $1,090,880 amount of

awarded fees and costs, as well as “recoverable costs, and some amount for delay.” Ruff v. County of

Kings, CV-F-05-631 OWW/GSA, 2009 WL 5195966, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009) (requiring

defendant county to post supersedeas bond to stay enforcement of judgment pending appeal, despite its

claimed future ability to pay, due to present economic climate). The parties assured by the bond should

be named as “Howard Rice Nemerovski Cannady Falk & Rabkin, PC” and “Chapman Popik & White

LLP, Attorney-Client Trust Account.”

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion for a stay of the February 26,

2010 order conditioned upon defendant posting a supersedeas bond within 30 days of the filing date of

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 527 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 At the hearing on this matter, defense counsel requested that the Court stay this order to allow

defendant time to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit regarding the condition of posting a bond. The

Court DENIES this request.

3

this order. (Docket No. 514).2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 27, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 527 Filed 04/28/10 Page 3 of 3