Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc.
Decision Date | 06 April 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 17-cv-03597-EMC |
Parties | OPTICURRENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Pending before the Court is Power Integrations, Inc.'s ("PI's") motion to stay the execution of the judgment against it pending its appeal of this Court's order denying its motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. See Docket No. 384 ("Stay Mot.").
Here, PI has obtained a supersedeas bond equal to 125% of Opticurrent's $1,199,987 award, i.e., $1,499,959.08, plus 125% of subsequent royalties. See Docket No. 394-2 (Decl. of Michael R. Headley in Supp. of Renewed Mot. to Stay Execution, Ex. A (Bond No. 3484412)). The total amount of the bond is $1,943,105.86, and the bond specifies that it is undertaken "pending appeal from Rule 60 order." Id. Therefore, PI is entitled to a stay of the judgment's execution because "the funds deposited with the Court [are] sufficient to protect [Opticurrent] from loss while the execution is stayed." Rachel, 831 F.3d at 1505 n.1.
Opticurrent argues that this Court should deny the stay under In re Zapata Gulf Marine Corporation, 941 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1991)—a 1991 Fifth Circuit case—because "where a case is transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, the choice of law rules that would have been applied by the transferor court—here, the Eastern District of Texas—are applied." See Docket No. 387 ("Opp'n"). But § 1404(a) does not require this Court to apply Fifth Circuit law because whether to stay the execution of the judgment pending appeal is a question of federal law, not state law. See Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516, 523 (1990) . Indeed, this Court's application of Rule 62(b)—a federal rule of civil procedure—has nothing to do with Texas or California state law. As a result, the aforementioned Ninth Circuit law governs this motion. See Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc., 878 F.2d 1413, 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ().
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS PI's motion to stay the execution of the judgment in this case until its appeal of this Court's Rule 60 motion is decided.
This order disposes of Docket No. 384.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 6, 2021
/s/_________
EDWARD M. CHEN
To continue reading
Request your trial