IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 30, 2012
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
JAMES JARDINE, PLAINTIFF,
EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Case No. 10-3335 SC
consolidated for all purposes with:
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COST BOND
Defendant Employers Fire Insurance Company ("Employers") now 26 moves for a cost bond against Plaintiff James Jardine ("Jardine") 27 under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure ("FRAP") 7 and Civil 28 Local Rule ("Civ. L.R.") 65.1-1(a). ECF No. 82 ("Bond Mot."). The Motion is fully briefed. ECF Nos. 83 ("Opp'n"), 86 ("Reply"). The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral 3 argument. 4 5
The Court concludes that Employers' motion for a cost bond 7 lacks merit. The Court previously denied Employers' Motion for
Attorney Fees without prejudice on the ground that Jardine's 9 pending appeal in this matter "may substantially affect Employers' 10 eligibility to recover attorney's fees." ECF No. 81 ("Atty. Fees Order") at 2. Now Employers is again asking the Court to rule on 12 issues that it expressly declined to decide until after the 13 resolution of Jardine's appeal. For example, central to both the 14 instant motion and Employers' previous Motion for Attorney Fees is 15 the issue of whether Employers is entitled to recover attorney fees 16 under Section 13 of the Settlement Agreement entered into by the 17 parties. The Court stands by its previous order and declines to 18 decide the issue of attorney fees until the Ninth Circuit reaches a 19 decision on Jardine's appeal. 20
Employers gives the Court discretion to grant or deny a request for 22 bond. See FRAP 7 ("the district court may require an appellant to 23 file a bond" (emphasis added)); Civ. L.R. 65.1-1(a) ("the Court may 24 require any party to furnish security for costs" (emphasis added)). 25
In its discretion, the Court finds that a bond would be 26 inappropriate under the circumstances. Employers is effectively 27 asking that the Court require Jardine to post a $119,419.11 bond 28 before he can fully prosecute his appeal. See Bond Mot. at 7.
The Court also notes that the authority relied upon by
This would be a burdensome requirement for many appellants to meet.
The Court finds it would be especially burdensome for an appellant, 3 such as Jardine, who claims that an insurer failed to pay out all 4 that was due under its policy. 5 6
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Employers' Motion 8 for a Cost Bond. 9 10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.