Li v. Arcsoft, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: April 2, 2024
• Docket: 4:19-cv-05836
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP HOWARD E. KING, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 77012 2 HKING@KHPSLAW.COM TOR R. BRAHAM, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 108234 3 TBRAHAM@KHPSLAW.COM JOHN G. SNOW, ESQ., STATE BAR NO. 280790 4 JSNOW@KHPSLAW.COM JACKSON S. TRUGMAN, ESQ. STATE BAR NO. 295145 5 JTRUGMAN@KHPSLAW.COM 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, TWENTY-FIFTH FLOOR 6 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067-4506 TELEPHONE: (310) 282-8989 7 FACSIMILE: (310) 282-8903 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LEI LI, STRONG WEALTH INVESTMENT LIMITED and 9 PACIFIC SMILE LIMITED 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – OAKLAND DIVISION 13 14 LEI LI, an individual; STRONG WEALTH CASE NO. 4:19-CV-05836 JSW 15 INVESTMENT LIMITED, a British Virgin Islands Company; PACIFIC SMILE Hon. Jeffrey S. White, Ctrm 5 16 LIMITED, a British Virgin Islands Company, [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING 17 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT 18 vs. Re: Dkt. No. 386 19 ARCSOFT, INC., a California Corporation; MICHAEL DENG, an individual, Action commenced: September 18, 2019 20 Trial Date: January 22, 2024 Defendants. 21 22 23 Defendants ArcSoft, Inc. and Michael Deng’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Stay Execution of 24 Judgment (“Motion”) was submitted on March 19, 2024. Having considered all papers filed in 25 support of and in opposition to the Motion, arguments of counsel, and all other pleadings and 26 papers on file herein, the Court HEREBY DENIES the Motion. 27 “A stay of judgment usually requires a bond.” Fredianelli v. Jenkins, 2013 WL 5934988, 1 || operates for the appellant’s benefit and deprives the appellee of the immediate benefits of his 2 || judgment, a full supersedeas bond should be the requirement in normal circumstances.” Presidio 3 || Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 2019 WL 1542110, at *3 (S.D. Cal. April 8, 4 || 2019) (quotation marks omitted). While the court has discretion to waive the bond requirement, 5 || the party seeking an unsecured stay has the burden to “objectively demonstrate the reasons for 6 || departing from the usual requirement of a full supersedeas bond.” Cotton ex rel. McLure v. City of 7 || Eureka, 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1027-1028 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). Defendants § || have not met that burden here. 9|| Defendants have not demonstrated they have sufficient funds such that there i 2° doubt they could pay the obligation and the costs of bond would be wastefu Ms. Yan Jin's declaration shows that ArcSoft, Inc. has less than 5 times the 11|| amount of judgment in cash. Defendants’ alternate proposal of segregating th cash in a separate bank account lacks merit because Defendants would have access to the account and do not agree to not withdraw funds. 13 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion is DENIED. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. April 2, 2024 16 Date e rae Jeffrey S. White 7 nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HOLMES, PATERNO & LAAN NALNHIAnAlACo 1 yl on ‘eT A tT FATT □□□□□□□□□ □□□□□□□□