Schulken v. Wash. Mut. Bank

9 Citing cases

  1. Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.

    14-cv-00608-JCS (N.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Fed.R. App. P. 7. The need for a bond, as well its amount, are left to the discretion of the trial court. Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 09-CV-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013) (citing Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., C-05-4525 EMC, 2008 WL 4680033 (N.D. Cal. Oct.21, 2008) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 7 & Advisory Committee Notes (1979 Adoption))).

  2. Low v. Trump Univ., LLC

    Case No.: 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2017)   Cited 1 times
    Finding $500 bond appropriate for Rule 39(e) costs in class action

    In the absence of express guidance from either Rule 7 or the Ninth Circuit, district courts have evaluated three factors in determining whether an appeal bond is necessary: (1) the appellant's financial ability to post bond; (2) the risk that the appellant will not pay the costs if the appellant loses the appeal; and (3) an assessment of the likelihood that the appellant will lose the appeal and be subject to costs. See Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 09-CV-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013) (citing cases). Simpson does not dispute the need for an appeal bond. All three factors weigh in favor of an appeal bond. First, Plaintiffs argue that Simpson, a lawyer with her own private practice, has the financial ability to post a bond.

  3. In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig.

    5:18-md-02827-EJD (N.D. Cal. May. 16, 2023)

    Regarding financial ability, “[d]istrict courts have found this factor weighs in favor of a bond, absent an indication that a plaintiff is financially unable to post bond.” Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 09-CV-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013) (citing Fleury, 2008 WL 4680033, at *7); see also Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., No. 09-CV-01808 JW, 2012 WL 2055030, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) (“In the absence of evidence that posting a bond will pose a substantial hardship, this factor weighs in favor of requiring a bond.”)

  4. James v. Uber Techs.

    19-cv-06462-EMC (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2022)

    In his response, Mr. Mendel shall indicate: (1) his financial ability to post bond; (2) the risk that he would not pay the costs if the appeal loses; and (3) an assessment of the likelihood that he will lose the appeal and be subject to costs. Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 09-cv-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013); Fleury v. Richemont N. Am., Inc., No. 05-cv-4525-EMC, 2008 WL 4680033, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008).

  5. Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition Int'l, Inc.

    Case No.: 11cv1056-MDD (S.D. Cal. Feb. 29, 2016)

    Following the rationale of Azizian, courts have declined to include delay costs and administration costs in the amount of an appeal bond in the absence of an applicable cost-shifting statute. See Keller v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 2015 WL 6178829 *2; Schulken v. Washington Mutual Bank, No. 09-CV-02708, 2013 WL 1345716 *6-7 (N.D.Cal. April 2, 2013). Courts that have included administrative costs in an appeal bond have construed Azizian as limited to the question of the inclusion of attorneys' fees. See In re Netflix Privacy Litigation, No. 5:11-CV-00379-EJD, 2013 WL 6173772 *4 (N.D.Cal. November 25, 2013); Miletak v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. C 06-03778-JW, 2012 WL 3686785 *2 (N.D.Cal. August 27, 2012).

  6. Gonzales v. City of Antioch

    Case No. 14-cv-04728-KAW (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    "Courts in this district have recognized the difficulty and risk associated with collecting costs from out-of-state appellants." Padgett, 2015 WL 4240804, at *3 (citing Schulken v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 09-cv-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013)); Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., No. C 09-01808 JW, 2012 WL 205030, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012). "This issue may be weighed more heavily when an appellant lives outside the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit."

  7. Padgett v. Loventhal

    Case No. 5:04-cv-03946-EJD (N.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Courts in this district have recognized the difficulty and risk associated with collecting costs from out-of-state appellants. See Schulken v. Wash. Mut. Bank, No. 09-CV-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *5 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2013) (Koh, J.); Embry v. ACER Am. Corp., No. C 09-01808 JW, 2012 WL 2055030, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) (Ware, J.). This issue may be weighed more heavily when an appellant lives outside the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.

  8. In re Netflix Privacy Litigation

    Case No. 5:11-CV-00379-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013)   Cited 6 times

    The second factor assesses the risk that an appellant would not pay the costs if the appeal loses. Courts in the Northern District of California have recognized the difficulty and risk associated with collecting costs from out-of-state appellants. Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, 09-CV-02708 LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *5 (N.D. Cal. April 2, 2013); Embry, 2012 WL 2055030, at *1. This issue may be weighed more heavily when an appellant lives outside the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.

  9. Fruehauf Trailer Corp. v. Harrow

    Case No. CV 11-09218 DDP (C.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2013)

    "The first factor, ability to pay, is grounded in due process concerns." Schulken v. Washington Mut. Bank, No. 09-CV-02708-LHK, 2013 WL 1345716, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013). Courts must take care not to "unduly burden a party's right to appeal." Azizian, 499 F.3d at 961.