Cocona, Inc. v. VF Outdoor, LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: May 23, 2025
• Docket: 1:16-cv-02703
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No.16-cv-02703-CMA-SKC (consolidated with Civil Action No. 17-cv-01195- CMA-SKC, Cocona, Inc. v. Columbia Sportswear Company)

COCONA, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

v.

VF OUTDOOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Cocona, Inc.’s (“Cocona”) Motion for Stay of Award Pending Appeal or in the Alternative to Post a Partial Bond. (Doc. # 197.) Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Columbia Sportswear Company (“Columbia”) does not oppose a stay of execution of judgment pending appeal provided that “Cocona obtains a bond for the full amount of the $22,451.87 costs award.” (Doc. # 198 at 1.) Cocona argues that because it “has adequate resources to pay the Awarded Costs if its appeal is unsuccessful[,]” the Court should exercise its discretion to waive Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d)’s bond requirement, or, in the alternative, allow it to post a partial bond of only $5,000.00. (Doc. # 197 at 7.) Columbia responds by arguing that “no bond or reduced bond” is appropriate only in “unusual circumstances” and that the Court should instead set a supersedeas bond in the full amount in the normal circumstances of this case. (Doc. # 198 at 2−3.) The Court agrees with Columbia. “[T]he purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure an appellee from loss resulting from the stay of execution and that a full supersedeas bond should be the requirement in normal circumstances.” Miami Int’l Realty Co. v. Paynter, 807 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted).

“Accordingly, when setting supersedeas bonds courts seek to protect judgment creditors as fully as possible without irreparably injuring judgment debtors.” Id. 873−74 (quoting Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1154 (2d Cir. 1986), rev’d sub nom on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1 (1987)). While district courts do have inherent authority in setting supersedeas bonds and can choose to waive or order a reduced bond in certain circumstances (see id.), the Court finds that those circumstances are not present in this case. In Paynter, the Tenth Circuit held that the district court did not err when it granted a stay pending appeal without a full supersedeas bond because the appellant demonstrated objectively that posting a full bond was impossible or impractical, thereby

meeting his burden of proof. Id. The appellant showed that he was financially unable to post a full bond and that execution on the judgment would place him in insolvency. Id. at 874. The opposite is true here. Cocona has made it abundantly clear that it has the funds to post the full supersedeas bond. See (Doc. # 197 at 7 (“The amount of the Awarded Costs is modest and there is no demonstrable evidence to support a finding that Cocona will be unable to satisfy the Awarded Costs following the conclusion of its appeal.”)). See also (Doc. # 199 at 3 (“Columbia concedes that Cocona has the financial resources to pay Awarded Costs should it be unsuccessful on appeal.”)). Accordingly, Cocona’s Motion to post no or a partial bond (Doc. # 197) is DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Cocona, within 10 days of this Order, on or before 4:45 PM, June 2, 2025, shall post a full supersedeas bond in the amount of $22,451.87.

FURTHER ORDERED that the execution of the judgment is stayed pending appeal upon posting of the full supersedeas bond. DATED: May 23, 2025 BY THE COURT:

Cy Ou ge We CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO Senior United States District Judge