Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc.
- 4:16-cv-01135
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Lowery v. Rhapsody International, the court partly granted and partly denied Rhapsody’s motion, requiring an $860,220 bond to pause enforcement.
Rhapsody International, Inc. had to post an $860,220 supersedeas bond to seek a stay of enforcement, while the plaintiffs received protection for collecting the attorneys’ fees and costs judgment.
What happened
In Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Rhapsody asked to pause enforcement of a $1,720,441.57 award of attorneys’ fees and costs while it appealed, without posting a bond.
The court rejected Rhapsody’s request to eliminate the bond requirement but set the bond at $860,220—half the award—rather than the larger amount sometimes required. The order says the bond had to be posted by February 3, 2022, if Rhapsody wanted to pause enforcement.
The court granted in part and denied in part Rhapsody’s motion. The opinion does not identify the judge by name in readable text.
The detailed version
- Lowery v. Rhapsody International, Inc. · No. 4:16-cv-01135
- Jan. 28, 2022
Background
On January 4, 2022, the court issued an order awarding $1,720,441.57 in attorneys’ fees and costs. On January 20, 2022, Rhapsody International, Inc. asked the court to stay—temporarily pause—enforcement of that monetary judgment for 90 days while an appeal was pending, without requiring a bond.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) generally requires a party appealing a monetary judgment to obtain a supersedeas bond before receiving a stay. A supersedeas bond is security intended to protect the judgment recipient against the risk that the judgment later cannot be collected and to compensate for delay. The court explained that district courts have discretion to set the bond’s amount, allow alternative security, or waive the bond requirement. The party seeking to depart from the usual requirement bears the burden of objectively demonstrating sufficient reasons.
Analysis
The court declined to waive the bond requirement entirely. It reasoned that Rhapsody’s argument that a bond would create financial hardship undermined its position under the factors used to evaluate a waiver: that argument suggested Rhapsody’s ability to pay was not so certain that a bond would be unnecessary and reduced the court’s confidence in eventual payment. Because Rhapsody described the judgment as an extreme financial burden, the court concluded that a bond was necessary to protect the plaintiffs’ interest in collecting the judgment. The court also found that Rhapsody had not shown that even a lower bond would impose an undue burden.
The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to reduce the bond. Although courts have traditionally required bonds ranging from 1.25 to 1.5 times the judgment, the court found no reason to require an amount at the high end of that range. Considering Rhapsody’s representations about its current financial situation, it set the bond at $860,220, described as half of the $1,720,441.57 judgment.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part Rhapsody’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment. The order required Rhapsody to post a supersedeas bond of $860,220 by Thursday, February 3, 2022, if it wished to stay enforcement of the monetary judgment pending appeal. The readable opinion text does not identify the judge by name.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.