Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00662/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00662-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

U-Haul International, Inc., et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-662-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court entered a money judgment against Defendant (Dkt. #166) and subsequently

ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs (Dkt. ##190, 202). Defendant

appealed the judgment and award of fees and costs. Dkt. #204. The Court granted

Defendant’s request to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal after Defendant

posted an approved supersedeas bond. Dkt. #211; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d). Defendant has

filed a motion to substitute that single bond with two others. Dkt. #216. Plaintiffs object to

the proposed bond substitution. Dkt. #217. 

The purpose of Rule 62(d) is to “preserve the status quo during a stay pending appeal

of a district court decision[.]” Bass v. First Pac. Networks, Inc., 219 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th

Cir. 2000). Defendant sought and the Court has ensured the preservation of the status quo

pending the appeal. Defendant has failed to show that it is entitled to modify the existing

bond, the posting of which itself was a “privilege extended the judgment debtor as a price

of interdicting the validity of an order to pay money.” Biltmore Associates, L.L.C., v. Twin

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 220 Filed 08/04/08 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 -

City Fire Ins. Co., No. 05-04220, 2007 WL 2422053, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 22, 2007) (internal

quotes and citation omitted). The Court is particularly reluctant to order the bond

substitution over Plaintiffs’ objection, where the posting of a bond is recognized as an

instrument designed to “protect[] the prevailing plaintiff from the risk of a later uncollectible

judgment and compensates him for delay in the entry of the final judgment.” N.L.R.B. v.

Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988). That protection having been provided, the

Court declines Defendant’s invitation to disturb it. 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion for substitute bonds (Dkt. #216) is denied.

2. Defendant’s request for oral argument (Dkt. #219) is denied because the

parties have fully briefed the issues and oral argument will not aid the Court’s

decision. See Mahon v. Credit Bur. of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197,

1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

DATED this 4th day of August, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 220 Filed 08/04/08 Page 2 of 2