Lampkin
Lampkin v. Spangner
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 TRISHKA LAMPKIN AND ROBERT No. 2:20-cv-01204-JAM-JDP
CORTEZ,
12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ v. MOTION TO WAIVE BOND 14
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, M. SPANGER
15 in his official capacity, and
MATTHEW CORTEZ,
16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs come now before the Court seeking an order 19 waiving supersedeas bond under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b)1 or, in the 20 alternative, an order approving bond. Mot. to Waive Bond 21 (“Mot.”) at 1, ECF No. 30. Defendant opposes the motion. Opp’n, 22 ECF No. 35. Plaintiffs replied. Reply, ECF No. 39. For the 23 reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to 24 waive bond.2
25 1 Plaintiffs cited Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d), but, pursuant to an amendment in 2018, 62(d) is now 62(b). Committee Notes on Rules 26 – 2018 Amendment. 27 2 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 1, 2022. 1 …