DIRECTV v. Haines

E.D. Michigan

DIRECTV v. Haines

286 F. Supp. 2d 872, 2003 WL 22326408

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan

DecidedOctober 8, 2003

DocketCIV. 03-71001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 F. Supp. 2d 872 (DIRECTV v. Haines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DIRECTV v. Haines, 286 F. Supp. 2d 872, 2003 WL 22326408 (E.D. Mich. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

FEIKENS, District Judge.

Defendant Haines requests judicial notice be taken of a bond he has executed for the benefit of plaintiff DirecTV, and requests a stay in proceedings until DirecTV posts a similar bond for his benefit. Because such a bond is not required by law, I deny both motions.

I. Analysis

Defendant Haines argues that any time a party files claims or counterclaims against another party, the filing party is required to post a bond to indemnify the other party for damages incurred as a result of the claims. However, such a bond is required only if the court issues a preliminary injunction against one of the parties. These bonds are intended as compensation if the restrained party is proven to be in the right, and therefore the court-imposed restraints were wrongful. F.R.C.P. 65(c). Because no preliminary injunctions have issued in this case, and therefore no party is currently restrained by this Court, no bond is required.

*873 II. Conclusion

Defendant’s motions for judicial notice and a stay of proceedings are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION AND ORDER

FEIKENS, District Judge.

Defendant Haines requests judicial notice be taken of a bond he has executed for the benefit of plaintiff DirecTV, and requests a stay in proceedings until DirecTV posts a similar bond for his benefit. Because such a bond is not required by law, I deny both motions.

I. Analysis

Defendant Haines argues that any time a party files claims or counterclaims against another party, the filing party is required to post a bond to indemnify the other party for damages incurred as a result of the claims. However, such a bond is required only if the court issues a preliminary injunction against one of the parties. These bonds are intended as compensation if the restrained party is proven to be in the right, and therefore the court-imposed restraints were wrongful. F.R.C.P. 65(c). Because no preliminary injunctions have issued in this case, and therefore no party is currently restrained by this Court, no bond is required.

*873 II. Conclusion

Defendant’s motions for judicial notice and a stay of proceedings are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 F. Supp. 2d 872, 2003 WL 22326408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/directv-v-haines-mied-2003.