Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego

S.D. California

Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego

DecidedMay 12, 2025

Docket3:15-cv-01583

StatusUnknown

This text of Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego (Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF KEVIN BROWN by its ) Case No. 15-cv-1583-DMS-WVG successor in interest Rebecca Brown, and ) 11 Rebecca Brown, an individual, ) ORDER RELEASING CITY OF ) SAN DIEGO’S SUPERSEDEAS 12 Plaintiff, ) BOND AND/OR COLLATERAL ) 13 v. ) ) 14 MICHAEL LAMBERT and MAURA ) MEKENAS-PARGA, ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17

18 This case comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to exonerate the 19 bond and release the deposit on file with the District Court. 20 On April 6, 2020, the City of San Diego posted cash collateral in the amount 21 of $62,500 as security for the punitive damages verdict against Defendant Lambert 22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. The parties represent that this case 23 has been resolved after a jury trial and appeal. 24 The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure the appellees from a loss 25 resulting from a stay of execution. Pac. Reinsurance Mgmt. Corp. v. Ohio 26 Reinsurance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 1991). “The posting of a bond 27 protects the prevailing [party] from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988). “Courts release supersedeas bonds when the bond has served its purpose and no outstanding judgment remains.” Goss In’'l Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., No. 00-CV-35-LRR, 2006 WL 4757279, at *3 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 2006) (citations omitted). When a bond no longer serves its 5|| purpose of insuring payment of the award, it should be released. Rich v. BAC Home 6|| Loans Servicing LP, No. CV-11-00511-PHX-DLR, 2017 WL 1197005, at *1 (D. 7\| Ariz. Mar. 30, 2017). 8 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk 9|| release the amount of $62,500.00, plus interest, from the interest-bearing account in the above-entitled case to: 11 = 13 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is authorized to deduct a fee for the handling of all funds deposited with the court and held in interest bearing 16|| accounts or instruments. The fee must be equal to that authorized by the Judicial 17|| Conference of the United States and set by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2» < | 20 Dated: May 12, 2025 Pon Yn - 1 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF KEVIN BROWN by its ) Case No. 15-cv-1583-DMS-WVG successor in interest Rebecca Brown, and ) 11 Rebecca Brown, an individual, ) ORDER RELEASING CITY OF ) SAN DIEGO’S SUPERSEDEAS 12 Plaintiff, ) BOND AND/OR COLLATERAL ) 13 v. ) ) 14 MICHAEL LAMBERT and MAURA ) MEKENAS-PARGA, ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17

18 This case comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to exonerate the 19 bond and release the deposit on file with the District Court. 20 On April 6, 2020, the City of San Diego posted cash collateral in the amount 21 of $62,500 as security for the punitive damages verdict against Defendant Lambert 22 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62. The parties represent that this case 23 has been resolved after a jury trial and appeal. 24 The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to secure the appellees from a loss 25 resulting from a stay of execution. Pac. Reinsurance Mgmt. Corp. v. Ohio 26 Reinsurance Corp., 935 F.2d 1019, 1027 (9th Cir. 1991). “The posting of a bond 27 protects the prevailing [party] from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988). “Courts release supersedeas bonds when the bond has served its purpose and no outstanding judgment remains.” Goss In’'l Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., No. 00-CV-35-LRR, 2006 WL 4757279, at *3 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 2006) (citations omitted). When a bond no longer serves its 5|| purpose of insuring payment of the award, it should be released. Rich v. BAC Home 6|| Loans Servicing LP, No. CV-11-00511-PHX-DLR, 2017 WL 1197005, at *1 (D. 7\| Ariz. Mar. 30, 2017). 8 GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk 9|| release the amount of $62,500.00, plus interest, from the interest-bearing account in the above-entitled case to: 11 = 13 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is authorized to deduct a fee for the handling of all funds deposited with the court and held in interest bearing 16|| accounts or instruments. The fee must be equal to that authorized by the Judicial 17|| Conference of the United States and set by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2» < | 20 Dated: May 12, 2025 Pon Yn - 1 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Estate of Kevin Brown v. City of San Diego, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-kevin-brown-v-city-of-san-diego-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack