Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01112/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01112-14/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Board of Trustees of the Dairy Employees Union Local No. 17 Christian Labor Association of the United States of America Pension Trust
Counter Claimant
Charles Van Der Kooi Dairy
Counter Defendant
Cow-West North Star Dairy
Counter Defendant
Dairy Employees Union Local No. 17 Christian Labor Association of the United States of America Pension Trust
Counter Claimant
Henry Jongsma & Son Dairy
Counter Defendant
Irigaray Dairy
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRIGARAY DAIRY, CHARLES VAN DER 

KOOI DAIRY, HENRY JONGSMA & SON 

DAIRY , and COW-WEST NORTH STAR 

DAIRY,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

DAIRY EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 

17 CHRISTIAN LABOR ASSOCIATION 

OF THE UNIDED STATE OF AMERICA 

PENSION TRUST, and BOARD OF 

TRUSTEES OF THE DAIRY 

EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL NO. 17 

CHRISTIAN LABOR ASSOCIATION OF 

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

PENSION TRUST,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01112-MJS

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE, REQUEST FOR 

APPROVAL OF SUPERSEDAS BOND 

(ECF Nos. 136)

On July 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a request for approval of a signed supersedeas 

bond. (ECF No. 136.) The request is denied without prejudice to the filing of a bond in 

an amount equal to 125 percent of the judgment. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), “an appellant may obtain a stay as 

a matter of right by posting a supersedeas bond acceptable to the court.” In re 

Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977); see also American 

Case 1:13-cv-01112-MJS Document 137 Filed 07/22/16 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

Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 

(1966) ([I]t seems to be accepted that a party taking an appeal from the District Court is 

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

accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)”). However, district courts have inherent 

discretionary authority in setting the nature and amount of the requisite security. See

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

Plaintiffs are entitled to a stay of the judgment upon the filing of a proper supersedeas 

bond. However, the amount of the bond filed with the Court is inadequate. 

Local Rule 151(d) requires that a supersedeas bond be in an amount equal to 

125 percent of the judgment unless the Court otherwise orders. Plaintiffs have 

presented a bond in the exact amount of the judgment, $111,701.68. In order to provide 

Defendants adequate security to cover additional amounts associated with the judgment 

(for example, interest accrued after judgment), the Court requires Plaintiffs to provide a 

bond in an amount of 125 percent of the judgment – $139,627.10. 

Absent valid objection by Defendants, the Court anticipates approval of the 

request and stay of the judgment once the enlarged bond is filed.

ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for approval of the filing of a 

supersedeas bond is DENEID without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01112-MJS Document 137 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 2