IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 22, 2011
VALENT BIOSCIENCES SUPERSEDEAS BOND CORPORATION,
ORDER APPROVING RESPONDENT'S
On November 22, 2010, the Court granted Petitioner's petition to confirm an arbitration award, but denied Petitioner's request for additional attorney's fees. See Court's Docket Doc. No. 56. On December 17, 2010, Respondent filed a notice of appeal. See id. at Doc. No. 58. On December 30, 2010, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. See id. at Doc. No. 61.
On February 11, 2010, Respondent filed a notice of filing a supersedeas bond. See id. at Doc. No. 69. Respondent has filed a bond for $650,000.00. See id. Included in the notice is a proposed order that approves the bond. See id. Petitioner has filed no opposition or response to Respondent's notice.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) reads in pertinent part: "If an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond . . . . The bond may be given upon or after filing the notice of appeal or after obtaining the order allowing the order allowing the appeal. The stay takes effect when the court approves the bond." Pursuant to Local Rule 151(d), "When required, a supersedeas bond shall be 125 percent of the amount of the judgment unless the Court otherwise orders."
In this case, the total dollar amount of the arbitration award is $487,730.29 (excluding 9% ineterest per year on an award of $395,913.60). See Court's Docket Doc. No. 30-2. 125% of $487,730.29 yields a figure of $609,662.82. Considering the 9% interest per year on the nearly $400,000 portion of the award, Respondent's $650,000 bond amount appears to satisfy Local Rule 151(d). As of the date of this order, Petitioner has filed no response or opposition to Respondent's notice. The Court is not aware of a reason why Respondent's supersedeas bond should be disapproved.
In consideration of the above, the Court finds it appropriate to approve Respondent's supersedeas bond.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's $650,000 supersedeas bond is APPROVED; and
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d), the Court's judgment entered on November 22, 2010, is STAYED pending resolution of Respondent's appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.