Case Name: FIGURE EIGHT HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DR. JAYS, INC.; Wicked Fashions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-29
Citations: 534 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 12-56215
Parties: FIGURE EIGHT HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DR. JAYS, INC.; Wicked Fashions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BENAVIDES, BYBEE, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 534
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
FIGURE EIGHT HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DR. JAYS, INC.; Wicked Fashions, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-56215.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 8, 2013.
Filed July 29, 2013.
Erica Leigh Allen, Douglas Linde, The Linde Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
A. Eric Bjorgum, Karish & Bjorgum, PC, Pasadena, Karin G. Pagnanelli, Esquire, Counsel, Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert W. Clarida, Esquire, Arlana Cohen, Thomas Kjellberg, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
Before: BENAVIDES, BYBEE, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Fortunato P. Benavides, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff-Appellant Figure Eight Holdings, LLC ("Figure Eight") appeals the district court's order requiring it to post an appeal bond in the amount of $50,000 pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. This appeal stems from a copyright infringement case in which the district court granted summary judgment for Fashion Studio, LLC, Wicked Fashions, Inc., and Dr. Jays, Inc. ("Defendants"). Figure Eight's appeal from summary judgment has been held in abeyance pending the disposition of the instant appeal challenging the bond. See No. 11-56821.
Generally, we review for abuse of discretion any challenge to the amount of a bond. Azizian v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 499 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir.2007). However, a district court's legal analysis and statutory interpretation with respect to the decision to impose a bond are reviewed de novo. Id.
The parties agree that the following factors are appropriate for determining whether to impose the bond: (1) Figure Eight's financial ability to post a bond; (2) the risk that Figure Eight would not pay the costs if it loses the appeal; and (3) an assessment of the likelihood that Figure Eight will lose on appeal and thus be liable for costs. After reviewing the above factors de novo, we conclude that the district court did not err in imposing the appeal bond. We also find that under the particular facts in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the bond in the amount of $50,000. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting the motion for appeal bond.
The Clerk is instructed that the appeal may not proceed until Figure Eight posts the appeal bond. The Clerk is further instructed to set a filing deadline that allows Figure Eight a reasonable amount of time (not less than 10 days) to comply with the district court's order to post the bond. If an appeal bond is not posted by the Clerk's deadline, the appeal shall be dismissed. See Azizian, 499 F.3d at 961 (explaining that "[w]here an appellant has failed to pay an appeal bond, it is within our sound discretion to dismiss the appeal.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.