UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 10, 2011
HARRY DENNIS AND JON KOZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS,
KELLOGG COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A RULE 7 APPEAL BOND AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO SUMMARILY GRANT THE RULE 7 APPEAL BOND [Doc. Nos. 61 & 62]
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff-Appellees' motion to require Objector-Appellants Omar Rivero and Stephanie Berg to post an appeal bond of $3,000, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. [Doc. No. 61.] The purpose of such a bond is to protect appellees against the risk of nonpayment of costs by an unsuccessful appellant. Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., No. C-05-4525 EMC, 2008 WL 4680033, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) (citations omitted). "[T]he question of the need for a bond, as well as its amount, are left in the discretion of the trial court." Id. (citing Fed. R. App. P. 7, 1979 advisory committee notes). Neither Objector filed a timely opposition to the motion, and counsel for Objector Rivero represented to the Court that Rivero does not oppose a Rule 7 bond.
Plaintiffs' motion for a Rule 7 appeal bond is hereby GRANTED. [Doc. No. 61.] Accordingly, Plaintiffs' "Request for Order Summarily Granting Motion for Rule 7 Appeal Bond" is DENIED AS MOOT. [Doc. No. 62.] Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, objectors Omar Rivero and Stephanie Berg must jointly and severally post an appeal bond in the amount of $3,000 to cover Plaintiffs' costs on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.