Manriquez v. Vangilder
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:16-cv-01320
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Manriquez v. Vangilder, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ motion to stay the fee order pending appeal and waived the bond requirement.
The order affects defendants Vangilder and Vasquez by pausing the attorney-fee order during their appeal and relieving them of the requirement to post a bond; it also delays Manriquez’s collection of the fee award.
What happened
In Manriquez v. Vangilder, defendants asked the court to pause a February 3, 2021 order awarding Daniel Manriquez $259,237.50 in attorney fees while they appealed it.
Defendants argued that California could readily pay the award if the appeal failed, making a bond unnecessary. Manriquez argued that defendants had not provided enough assurance of payment and should post a bond.
Judge Gilliam granted the motion, stayed the fee order while the appeal proceeds, and ruled that defendants do not have to post a bond.
The detailed version
- Manriquez v. Vangilder · No. 4:16-cv-01320
- Haywood Gilliam
- May 4, 2021
Background
The court considered defendants’ motion to stay its February 3, 2021 attorney-fee order. A jury had returned a verdict for Daniel Manriquez, and final judgment was entered against defendants Vangilder and Vasquez in amounts of $1,000 and $1,500, respectively. The court later granted in part Manriquez’s motion for attorney fees and awarded him $259,237.50 under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. Defendants appealed that fee order to the Ninth Circuit.
Defendants sought a stay pending appeal without posting a supersedeas bond. A supersedeas bond is security intended to ensure that a judgment can be collected, including interest, if the appellate court affirms it. Defendants argued that California’s ability to pay the fee award was so clear that requiring a bond would waste money. They pointed to California’s General Fund, its taxing authority, and procedures for paying judgments against the state. Defendants also stated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would pay the fees if the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Manriquez argued that defendants had not shown that a bond was unnecessary and suggested a bond equal to 1.25 to 1.5 times the fee award. He argued that defendants had not unconditionally agreed to pay the award and any accrued interest. The court found the cases Manriquez cited distinguishable because they involved less certain assurances of payment.
Court’s Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(b) permits a party to obtain a stay after judgment by providing a bond or other security. The court explained that the Ninth Circuit recognizes district courts’ discretionary authority to set or waive supersedeas bonds. Courts commonly consider five factors: the complexity of collection, the time needed to collect after affirmance, confidence that funds will be available, whether the defendant’s ability to pay makes a bond wasteful, and whether requiring a bond would harm other creditors.
The court focused on the fourth factor. It accepted defendants’ assertion that California would pay the fee award if the Ninth Circuit affirmed and found no reason to discredit that assertion. The court concluded that California’s ability to pay the “modest” award was sufficiently clear that the cost of a bond would be wasteful.
Disposition
The court GRANTS the motion. The February 3, 2021 attorney-fee order is stayed pending defendants’ appeal, and defendants are not required to post a supersedeas bond.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.