United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANT VALLEY
DIAGNOSTICS LABORATORY, INC.'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT AND APPROVE BOND (DOC. 175)
K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
August 30, 2019, Defendant Valley Diagnostics Laboratory,
Inc. (“VDL”) filed a “Motion for a Stay of
Proceedings to Enforce the Judgment/Approve Bond”
pursuant to Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
motion, VDL represents that it has secured a supersedeas bond
in the amount of $197, 720, equivalent to approximately 125%
of the judgment entered against VDL, and that VDL has
deposited that amount in cash with a surety corporation.
(Id. at 3.) The motion states Qarni's relatives
provided the money to Qarni to deposit on behalf of VDL.
(See id.) VDL requests that the Court stay
proceedings to enforce the judgment against it during the
pendency of any appeal of the judgment, and accept the
supersedeas bond as security under Rule 62. (See
filed an opposition on September 18, 2019, and VDL filed a
reply on September 25, 2019. (Docs. 177, 178.)
review of the motion and supporting documents, the Court
deemed the matter suitable for decision without oral argument
pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Accordingly, the hearing on
the motion set for October 2, 2019, was vacated. (Doc. 179.)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
(b) Stay by Bond or Other Security. At any time after
judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a
bond or other security. The stay takes effect when the court
approves the bond or other security and remains in effect for
the time specified in the bond or other security.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). Rule 62(b) allows a party to stay
execution of a judgment pending appeal by posting a
supersedeas bond with the court. See Hardesty v.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District, No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN, 2019 WL 2715616, at
*3 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2019) (“Rule 62(d) [now Rule
62(b)] is a purely procedural mechanism to preserve the
status quo during a stay pending appeal of a district court
decision . . .”) (citing Vacation Vill.,
Inc. v. Clark Cty., Nev., 497 F.3d 902, 913-14 (9th Cir.
2007)). Under this rule, a party can “receive the stay
‘as a matter of right by posting a supersedeas bond
acceptable to the court.'” Nat'l Grange of
the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. Cal. Guild, No.
2:14-cv-676 WBS DB, 2019 WL 2009533, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 7,
2019) (quoting Matter of Combined Metals
Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 193 (9th Cir. 1977)).
the amount of the bond, the district court has
“inherent discretionary authority in setting
supersedeas bonds.” Rachel v. Banana Republic,
Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 n.1 (9th Cir. 1987).
“The purpose of the supersedeas bond is to secure the
appellees from any loss resulting from the stay in execution
of judgment.” Nat'l Grange, 2019 WL
2009533, at *2 (citing Pac. Reinsurance Mgmt. Corp. v.
Ohio Reinsurance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir.
1991)). Local Rule 151 generally requires a bond in the
amount of 125 percent of the judgment amount. E.D. Cal. L.R.
151(d) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 62).
Rule 151 also provides that “[e]very security, bond,
undertaking, or deposit instrument shall state the conditions
of the obligation and shall contain a provision expressly
subjecting it to all applicable federal law, ” and
“[n]o security, bond, or undertaking with corporate
surety shall be accepted unless the corporate surety is in
compliance with the provisions of 31 U.S.C. §§
9304-06[.]” E.D. Cal. L.R. 151(e), (f).
seeks to stay proceedings to enforce the judgment during the
pendency of an appeal of the judgment by posting a supersedeas
bond with the Court in the amount of $197, 720- which
represents approximately 125% of the $158, 175 judgment
against VDL. (Doc. 175.) Plaintiff objects to the form of the
bond, contending that the bond is not in compliance with
Local Rule 151, because it does not (1) contain a provision
expressly subjecting the bond to “all applicable
federal law” or (2) establish that the corporate surety
is in compliance with 31 U.S.C. §§ 9304-06. (Doc.
177 at 16.) Plaintiff also contends the Court should apply a
four-factor test ...