Opinion ID: 723158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of Bond

Text: 15 The district court required plaintiffs to post a security bond in the amount of $60,000. Defendant contends that this amount is grossly inadequate in light of the fact that complying with the preliminary injunction will cost defendant an estimated $111,000 per month in 1996. This court reviews the setting of the amount of the bond for an abuse of discretion. USACO Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc., 689 F.2d 94, 100 (6th Cir.1982). 16 The amount of the bond in this case is consistent with analogous cases. See, e.g., Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 845 F.Supp. 410, 416-17 (E.D.Mich.1994) (requiring $100,000 bond where injunction would cost company $160,000 per month), aff'd, 73 F.3d 648 (6th Cir.1996); Helwig v. Kelsey-Hayes, 857 F.Supp. 1168, 1181 (E.D.Mich.1994) (requiring $95,000 bond where cost to company was $150,000 per month); Schalk v. Teledyne, Inc., 751 F.Supp. 1261, 1268-69 (W.D.Mich.1990) (requiring $50,000 bond where the defendant claimed that cost to maintain old health plan was $90,000 per month), aff'd, 948 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir.1991). Such an amount protects defendant while appropriately accounting for plaintiffs' limited financial resources. See 11A Charles Wright, Arthur Miller, & Mary Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2954 (2d ed. 1995). The amount of the bond was appropriate.