Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01057/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01057-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN WAINE-GOLSTON and

ANDRE CORBIN, individually and on

behalf of other members of the general

public similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 11cv1057-GPC(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

ENFORCE EXECUTION OF

BILL OF COSTS

[Dkt. No. 123.]

vs.

TIME WARNER

ENTERTAINMENTADVANCE/NEW HOUSE

PARTNERSHIP, a New York general

partnership and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to enforce execution of bill of costs. 

(Dkt. No. 123.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition on August 2, 2013. (Dkt. No. 125.) 

Defendant filed a reply on August 16, 2013. (Dkt. No. 126.) Based on the reasoning

below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to enforce execution of bill of costs. 

Background

On March 27, 2013, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. (Dkt. No. 105.) Subsequently, on April 4, 2013, Defendant filed its bill of

costs. (Dkt. No. 107.) On April 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. No.

- 1 - [11cv1057-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 127 Filed 09/18/13 Page 1 of 5
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

109.) On April 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to stay enforcement of

Defendant’s bill of costs pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 115.) On May 7, 2013, the Court

granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ ex parte request. Specifically, the Court

denied Plaintiffs’ request to stay a ruling on Defendant’s bill of costs but granted their

request “to stay execution of the bill of costs conditioned upon Plaintiffs posting a

supersedeas bond for the full amount of costs taxed by the Clerk of Court.” (Dkt. No.

118 at 4.) Pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiffs were required to “post a supersedeas

bond within 14 days of the date that the bill of costs are taxed,” and “[i]f no bond is

posted, there shall be no stay of enforcement and the bill of costs taxed by the Clerk of

Court shall be subject to enforcement.” (Id. at 4-5.) On May 24, 2013, the Clerk of

Court issued an Order Taxing Costs and awarded Defendants costs in the amount of

$3,039.30. (Dkt. No. 122.) 

On June 26, 2013, defense counsel sent an email to Plaintiffs’ counsel reminding

him that Plaintiffs had been required to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of

$3,039.30 on or before June 7, 2013. (Dkt. No. 123-2, Sankey Decl. ¶ 4.) She also

stated that if Plaintiffs did not post a bond by June 28, 2013, Defendant would move

for full execution of the judgment. (Id., Ex. 1.) Plaintiffs’ counsel responded a few

hours later informing that Plaintiffs would “promptly attend to the costs matter.” (Id.,

Ex. 2.) Since, then, Plaintiffs have not posted bond or otherwise contacted Defendant

about their failure to do so. (Id. ¶ 6.) Thus, on July 9, 2013, Defendant filed a motion

to enforce execution of bill of costs. 

Discussion

Defendant seeks the Court to enforce execution of bill of costs for Plaintiffs’

failure to comply with the Court’s order to post a supersedeas bond within 14 days of

date that the bill of costs were taxed. In opposition, Plaintiffs request that the Court

exercise its discretion and decline to enforce the bill of costs on the grounds that

Plaintiffs have limited resources and enforcing the bill of costs may render them

indigent. The issue is whether the Court should enforce execution of the bill of costs

- 2 - [11cv1057-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 127 Filed 09/18/13 Page 2 of 5
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

for Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Court’s order requiring them to file a

supersedeas bond in order to stay execution of the bill of costs. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 62 allows a party to stay execution of

a judgment while a case is on appeal by posting a supersedeas bond. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 62(d). A full bond generally is required under Rule 62(d) because the purpose of the

bond “is to secure the appellees from a loss resulting from the stay of execution.” 

Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n. 1 (9th Cir.1987). A party is

entitled to a waiver of a bond and a discretionary stay in “extraordinary cases.” Poplar

Grove Planting & Refining Co. v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 600 F.2d 1189, 1190-91

(5th Cir. 1979). A district court may either waive the bond requirement or allow the

judgment debtor to use some alternative type of security. Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced

Micro Devices, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 1101, 1104 (S.D. Cal. 1990). The party seeking the

waiver bears the burden showing the relief from the bond requirement is justified. 

Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., 08cv1462-IEG(WVG), 2011 WL 4835742, at *10 (S.D.

Cal. Oct. 12, 2011). 

A bond may not be necessary “(i) when the judgment debtor can currently easily

meet the judgment and demonstrates that it will maintain the same level of solvency

during appeal, [or] (ii) when ‘the judgment debtor’s present financial condition is such

that the posting of a full bond would impose an undue financial burden.’” Alexander

v. Chesapeake, Potomac and Tidewater Books, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 190, 193 (E.D. Va.

1999) (citing Poplar Grove, 600 F.2d at 1191). Where the “‘judgment debtor’s present

financial condition is such that the posting of a full bond would impose an undue

financial burden, the court . . . is free to exercise its discretion to fashion some other

arrangement for substitute security through an appropriate restraint on the judgment

debtor’s financial dealings, which would equal protection to the judgment creditor.’” 

In re Wymer, 5 B.R. 802, 806 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.1980) (citing Poplar Grove Planting., 600

F.2d 1191); see also Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 96-1231-

IEG(POR), 1999 WL 33554683, at *4 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (“court has discretion to allow

- 3 - [11cv1057-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 127 Filed 09/18/13 Page 3 of 5
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

other forms of judgment guarantee”); Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d

1358, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (“[W]e have held that the district court may permit security

other than a bond.”). Plaintiffs bear the burden of formulating an alternative plan and

the court will not imagine one of its own. See id. at 807; Bolt v. Merrimack Pharms,

Inc., No. S-04-893-WBS DAD, 2005 WL 2298423, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2005). 

 In the opposition, Plaintiff Waine-Golston states that he is unemployed and

searching for employment. (Dkt. No. 125-1, Waine-Golston Decl. ¶ 3.) His disability

benefits were discontinued which was his only source of income. (Id. ¶ 4.) Since he

has no source of income, he is having a hard time covering his basic costs of living and

does not have enough to pay all or half of the bill of costs totaling $3,039.30. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Plaintiff Corbin states that he found some work since working at Time Warner but has

been through some periods of unemployment. (Dkt. No. 125-2, Corbin Decl. ¶ 3.) He

does not have a full time job but is currently working as a “temp” on a contract basis. 

(Id.) Since he only makes a modest income from his temp job, he has a hard time

covering basic costs of living and does not have enough money to pay all or even half

of the bill of costs totaling $3.039.30. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) 

While both Plaintiffs’ declarations assert that they are unable to pay all or even

half of the $3,039.30, they have not stated whether they can afford a supersedeas bond

in the amount of $3,039.30. See Poplar Grove, 600 F.2d at 1191. Moreover, if they

are unable to afford the cost of a bond, they have not provided alternative forms of

security. Plaintiffs again have not demonstrated that they are entitled to a waiver of a

bond. Furthermore, the Court has concerns about Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the 1

Court’s order. Subsequent to the Court’s order granting in part and denying in part

Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion, Plaintiffs sought no further relief from the Court. Instead

they waited until Defendants filed a motion to enforce execution of bill of costs to file

their response. Based on these reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to enforce

In Plaintiffs’ prior ex parte motion to stay enforcement of Defendant’s bill of costs, the Court 1

concluded that Plaintiffs did not demonstrate they were entitled to a waiver of a bond. (Dkt. No. 118

at 3.) 

- 4 - [11cv1057-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 127 Filed 09/18/13 Page 4 of 5
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

execution of bill of costs. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to enforce

execution of bill of costs. Since no bond has been posted, no stay of enforcement has

been issued and the Order Taxing Costs is subject to enforcement. Defendant must 2

comply with the procedures in the Civil Local Rules to enforce the Order Taxing Costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 18, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

On May 7, 2013, the Court ordered that “Plaintiff shall post a supersedeas bond 2

within 14 days of the date that the bill of costs are taxed. Once a bond has been posted,

a stay shall remain in effect until the appeal before the Ninth Circuit, No. 13-55622 is

fully resolved. If no bond is posted, there shall be no stay of enforcement and the bill

of costs taxed by the Clerk of Court shall be subject to enforcement.” (Dkt. No. 118

at 4.)

- 5 - [11cv1057-GPC(RBB)]

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 127 Filed 09/18/13 Page 5 of 5