Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01057/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01057-2/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,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1057-GPB(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE

REQUEST TO STAY

ENFORCEMENT OF

DEFENDANT’S BILL OF

COSTS PENDING APPEAL 

[Dkt. No. 115.]

vs.

TIME WARNER

ENTERTAINMENTADVANCE/NEW HOUSE

PARTNERSHIP, a New York general

partnership and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte request to stay enforcement of

Defendant’s bill of costs pending appeal. (Dkt. No. 115.) On March 27, 2013, the

Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 105.) On April

10, 2013, Defendant filed a bill of costs in the amount of $3,218.05 with a hearing set

1

for May 1, 2013. (Dkt. No. 107.) On April 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal

to the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 109.) On April 30, 2013, the bill of costs hearing was

The original bill of costs sought costs in the amount of $4,863.14; however, it was revised to 1

total $3,218.05 after excluding costs of “expedited” and “daily” deposition transcripts. 

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

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 118 Filed 05/07/13 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

continued to May 15, 2013. (Dk.t No. 114.) On the same day, Plaintiffs filed an ex

parte motion to stay enforcement of Defendant’s bill of costs pending appeal. (Dkt. 2

No. 115.) On May 3, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition. (Dkt. No. 117.) Based on

the reasoning below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ ex

parte motion to stay enforcement of Defendant’s bill of costs.

Discussion

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), “[u]nless a federal statute,

these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs—other than attorney’s

fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). “Rule 54(d)

creates a presumption in favor of awarding costs to prevailing parties, and it is

incumbent upon the losing party to demonstrate why the costs should not be awarded.” 

Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999). Civil Local Rule

54.1(g)(5) provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, costs will be taxed on

the date set notwithstanding the fact that an appeal may have been filed.” Civ. Local

R. 54.1(g)(5).

In assessing whether to issue a stay pending appeal, courts consider “(1) whether

the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance

of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings; and

(4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). 

The court’s authority to issue a stay is generally conditioned upon approval of a bond.

Vacation Village, Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 497 F.3d 902, 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 62(d) . . . requires only that the appellant post a supersedeas bond

in order to obtain a stay on appeal.”) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) provides

that “[i]f an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . .

. The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the

As Defendants point out, it is not clear whether Plaintiffs are seeking a stay of the ruling on 2

Defendant’s bill of costs or a stay on the enforcement of costs. The Court addresses both arguments.

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

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 118 Filed 05/07/13 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

order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). 

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 debtorto use some alternative type ofsecurity. 

Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 1101, 1104 (S.D. Cal.

1990). A waiver of the bond requirement is appropriate under two circumstances: 

“where defendant’s ability to pay is so plain that the cost of the bond would be a waste

of money” and “where the requirement would put the defendant’s other creditors in

undue jeopardy.” Id. at 1104 (citing Olympia Equipment v. Western Union Tele. Co.,

786 F.2d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 1986)). 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). 

While Plaintiffs cite cases that the district court has discretion to issue a stay

without the posting of a bond, they fail to address whether they meet the factors to

warrant a waiver of the bond requirement. Accordingly, having failed to demonstrate

that a waiver is justified, Plaintiffs are not entitled to a waiver of a bond if a stay is

granted. 

As to the merits of the stay of enforcement, Plaintiffs argue that there is a strong

possibility that they will succeed on the merits of their appeal. They also contend that

they will be irreparably harmed as they are currently unemployed. Plaintiffs further 3

assert that Defendant will not be harmed by a stay as it only needs to wait six months

when the appellate briefings are due to collect costs. Lastly, they contend that the

public interest favors the use of class action lawsuits. 

In a declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel also asserts that from his experience it is 3

harder for many current and former employees to find employment after serving as a

named class representative. This statement is not helpful as it is not clear whether

Plaintiffs are having difficulty obtaining employment because they are named plaintiffs

in a class action case. 

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

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 118 Filed 05/07/13 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

Defendant opposes arguing that a stay is not warranted because Plaintiffs are not

likely to succeed on the merits. They also argue that Plaintiffs will not be irreparably

harmed absent a stay because besides the fact they are currently unemployed, they have

not shown they are unable to pay costs of $3,218.05 between the two of them, or

provide any documentation to such effect. There is also no public interest in class

action cases because, in this case, the Court denied class certification and granted

Defendant’s motion to summary judgment. 

The Court finds that the most relevant factor whether to issue a stay is whether

Plaintiffs have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits. 

While Plaintiffs have not demonstrated they are likely to succeed on the merits, the

Court acknowledges that the legal issue on appeal is disputed by the parties and there

is no binding precedent. Since the issue on appeal is disputed, a reversal on appeal

may reverse the “prevailing party.” See Jardin v. DATAllegro, Inc., 08cv1462-

IEG(WVG), 2011 WL 4835742, at *10 (S.D. Cal. 2011). Moreover, the Court sees no

harm to Defendant, a large business, in holding off to collect $3,218.05. Accordingly,

the Court exercises its discretion and stays the execution of the bill of costs taxed by

the Clerk of Court. The parties have not directly addressed and the Court sees no

reason to stay a ruling on Defendant’s bill of costs. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to stay a ruling on

Defendant’s bill of costs. The bill of costs hearing shall proceed on May 15, 2013. 

Once the Clerk of Court has taxed costs, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion 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. Plaintiff shall post a

supersedeas bond 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

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

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 118 Filed 05/07/13 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

enforcement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 7, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

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

Case 3:11-cv-01057-GPC-RBB Document 118 Filed 05/07/13 Page 5 of 5