Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05010/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05010-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGIL ANDERSON, KARL )

JOHNSON, and NANCY VENNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-5010 AWI DLB

ORDER VACATING MAY 16, 2005

HEARING

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT

TO FILE A SUPERSEDEAS BOND

(Document #113)

BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2005, the court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this

action. On March 18, 2005, the court entered judgment for a total amount of $877,401. 

On March 23, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion for amendment to the Findings of Fact and a

modification of the judgment. Plaintiffs contend that in the court’s order the court incorrectly

calculated Plaintiff Anderson’s damages. On April 26, 2005, the court granted Plaintiff’s

motion and amended the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to reflect Plaintiff Anderson’s

correct salary and allow for economic damages for Plaintiff Anderson in the amount of $345,909. 

On April 26, 2005, the Clerk of the Court entered an amended judgment. Pursuant to the

amended judgment, the new judgment totals $991,018.

On April 8, 2005, Defendant filed a motion for stay of enforcement of the judgment and

approval of a supersedeas bond. The matter was scheduled for hearing to be held on May 16,

Case 1:03-cv-05010-AWI-DLB Document 124 Filed 05/13/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2005. In its motion, Defendant states that it has obtained a bond from National Indemnity

Company in the amount of $1,096,751.25, which is 125% of the judgement entered on March 18,

2005. 

On April 25, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a response. Plaintiffs state that they have no

opposition to Defendant’s motion so long as the supersedeas bond is set at 125% of the amended

judgment. 

On May 10, 2005, Defendant contacted the court. Defendant states that it is willing to

post a supersedeas bond that is 125% of the amended judgment.

DISCUSSION

 Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]hen an appeal is

taken the appellant by giving a supersedeas bond may obtain a stay,” subject to exceptions not

relevant in this case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). A party appealing a district court’s entry of a money

judgment is entitled to a stay of the money judgment as a matter of right if he posts a bond in

accordance with Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins.

Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S.Ct. 1, 3 (1966) (mem.). The

district court has discretion to set the amount of a supersedeas bond. Rachel v. Banana

Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n. 1 (9th Cir.1987). “The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to

protect the appellees from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensate the appellees

from any loss resulting from the stay of execution. N.L.R.B. v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th

Cir. 1988). Local Rule 65.1-151 provides that a supersedeas bond shall be 125% of the amount

of the judgment unless the court orders a different amount.

Defendant has obtained a bond in the amount of $1,096,751.25, which is 125% of the

judgment entered on March 18, 2005. Since Defendant filed its motion, the judgment was

amended on April 26, 2005 to total $991,018. Thus, Defendant needs to provide a supersedeas

bond for 125% of $991,018. In their brief, Plaintiffs state that they have no opposition to a stay

if Defendant provides a supersedeas bond based on the April 26, 2005 amended judgment. As

Case 1:03-cv-05010-AWI-DLB Document 124 Filed 05/13/05 Page 2 of 3
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 3

such, the court will grant Defendant’s motion on the condition that Defendant provide a

supersedeas bond based on the amended judgment.

ORDER

Accordingly, the court orders that:

1. The previously set hearing date of May 16, 2005, is VACATED, and no party shall

appear at that time

2. Defendant’s motion for a stay of enforcement of the judgment pending appeal is

GRANTED;

3. The supersedeas bond is APPROVED; and

4. Defendant is DIRECTED to obtain a supersedeas bond in the amount of 125% of the

amended judgment and post it with the court by May 18, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05010-AWI-DLB Document 124 Filed 05/13/05 Page 3 of 3