Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-40/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Campbell
Plaintiff
PriceWaterhouse Coopers, LLP
Defendant
Sarah Sobek
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

On March 11, 2009, this court granted the plaintiff class’s

motion for summary adjudication as to the issue of class members’

exemption from California wage and hour law. Campbell v.

Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, 602 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1166 (E.D. Cal.

2009). This court, acting sua sponte, certified that order for

interlocutory appeal. Id. at 1186. The Ninth Circuit has granted

defendant’s petition for permission to appeal. Defendant has

contacted the court to inquire whether a cost bond will be set for

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 453 Filed 07/09/09 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

2

the appeal. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 provides in relevant

part that, “[i]n a civil case, the district court may require an

appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and

amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal.” The

federal rules do not provide explicit guidance as to when a bond

should be posted. Here, plaintiffs have not requested such a bond.

Additionally, the court has already determined that this case

presents a close question such that an appeal is warranted. See

Fleury v. Richemont North America, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

88166 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) (noting that, absent guidance from

the Rules or the Ninth Circuit, other courts have imposed bonds

when appeals are meritless). Accordingly, no bond is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 8, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 453 Filed 07/09/09 Page 2 of 2