Opinion
4:19-CV-05836 JSW
04-02-2024
LEI LI, an individual; STRONG WEALTH INVESTMENT LIMITED, a British Virgin Islands Company; PACIFIC SMILE LIMITED, a British Virgin Islands Company, Plaintiffs, v. ARCSOFT, INC., a California Corporation; MICHAEL DENG, an individual, Defendants.
KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 77012 HKING@KHPSLAW.COM TOR R. BRAHAM, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 108234 JOHN G. SNOW, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 280790 JACKSON S. TRUGMAN, ESQ. STATE BAR NO. 295145 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LEI LI, STRONG WEALTH INVESTMENT LIMITED and PACIFIC SMILE LIMITED
Action commenced: September 18, 2019
Trial Dated: January 22, 2024
KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 77012 HKING@KHPSLAW.COM
TOR R. BRAHAM, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 108234
JOHN G. SNOW, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 280790JACKSON S. TRUGMAN, ESQ. STATE BAR NO. 295145
Attorneys for Plaintiffs LEI LI, STRONG WEALTH INVESTMENT LIMITED and PACIFIC SMILE LIMITED
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 386
JEFFREY S. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants ArcSoft, Inc. and Michael Deng's (“Defendants”) Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment (“Motion”) was submitted on March 19, 2024. Having considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, arguments of counsel, and all other pleadings and papers on file herein, the Court HEREBY DENIES the Motion.
“A stay of judgment usually requires a bond.” Fredianelli v. Jenkins, 2013 WL 5934988, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). “Because the stay operates for the appellant's benefit and deprives the appellee of the immediate benefits of his judgment, a full supersedeas bond should be the requirement in normal circumstances.” Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 2019 WL 1542110, at *3 (S.D. Cal. April 8, 2019) (quotation marks omitted). While the court has discretion to waive the bond requirement, the party seeking an unsecured stay has the burden to “objectively demonstrate the reasons for departing from the usual requirement of a full supersedeas bond.” Cotton ex rel. McLure v. City of Eureka, 860 F.Supp.2d 999, 1027-1028 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). Defendants have not met that burden here.
Defendants have not demonstrated they have sufficient funds such that there is no doubt they could pay the obligation and the costs of bond would be wasteful. Ms. Yan Jin's declaration shows that ArcSoft, Inc. has less than 5 times the amount of judgment in cash. Defendants' alternate proposal of segregating the cash in a separate bank account lacks merit because Defendants would have access to the account and do not agree to not withdraw funds.
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.