Opinion
1:19-cv-00748-JG
06-23-2023
CLIFFORD A. LOWE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SHIELDMARK, INC., et al., Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER [RELATED DOC. 229]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this patent infringement case, Plaintiffs Lowe and Spota LLC have filed an appeal and now move for the Court's approval of a supersedeas bond in the amount of $224,000 and a stay of the execution of judgment pending resolution of the appeal.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(b), a party may obtain a stay as a matter of right by providing a bond or other security.“A district court has discretion to fix the amount of the bond or waive the bond requirement.”
Arban v. West Pub. Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 409 (6th Cir. 2003). This Court has jurisdiction over this motion. See Hill v. Burgeon Legal Grp. Co., 2020 WL 6746856, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2020).
Sofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trustees of Ohio Operating Engineers Pension Fund, 2021 WL 858728, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021) (citations omitted).
While Plaintiffs offered calculations supporting its $224,000 bond amount, those calculations did not consider the lost use of the judgment amount during the appeal pendency.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to set a supersedeas bond but sets the bond amount at $235,000.
IT IS SO ORDERED.