Isaacson will seek immediate review of such an order so that the Eleventh Circuit can resolve the issue whether administrative expenses or interest are Case 0:15-cv-60716-WPD Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2016 Page 19 of 21 20 permitted to be included. However, to move for a stay of the bond order pending review, Isaacson must first seek a stay in this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1) and (2). Thus, if this Court will either (1) stay the bond pending appeal, or (2) explicitly deny a stay, doing so would eliminate any delay attending the requirement to seek that relief from this Court in the first instance.

Although this case is on appeal, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) authorize the Court to consider this Motion. FRAP 8(a)(1)(C) authorizes the district court to issue "an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending." Rule 62(c) provides that "[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on ... terms that secure the opposing party's rights."

Fed. R. App. Proc. 7 does not give a district court authority to write Fed. R. App. Proc. 8 out of the rules of federal procedure and require a bond for delay costs as a precondition for appeal. American President Lines, 779 F.2d at 718-19.

But this allegation demonstrates that what plaintiffs are really seeking is a supersedeas bond. They perhaps are misnaming it an appeal bond because they realize that they have zero chance of obtaining a supersedeas bond under Fed. R. App. Proc. 8 or Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 62(d). American Presidential Lines, 779 F.2d at 717-18; Vaughn v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 507 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2007).

535-538, 539, 541-546, 549-554, 566-573, 586-591. IV – OBJECTORS' CONTENTION THAT THE BOND - AND THEREFORE THE SANCTIONS FOR FAILING TO POST THE BOND - ARE ‘ULTRA VIRES’ MISSTATES THE LAW AND RECORD IN THIS CASE The authority of a District Court to impose a bond pending appeal is well-settled, and is 9 Neither decision supports the Objectors' interpretation that the Motion Judge based his decision on his belief that the FRAP 7 Order represented a ‘supersedeas bond’ - and was therefore proper only under FRAP 8 - not FRAP 7. 10 An award of attorney fees for a frivolous appeal is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Appeals Court and exclusively awardable under FRAP 38.

F.R.A.P. 8(a)(1). The District Court has discretion to grant a stay, pursuant to F.R.A.P. 8, unless that court is divested of jurisdiction by the nature and breadth of the appeal. See U.S. v. DeFries, 129 F.3d 1293, 1302-03 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

Here, it is undisputed that the stay caused by the appeal will substantially erode the value of the money judgment. Thus, the supersedeas component of the bond is entirely consistent with Federal Rule 62 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8. Accordingly, the $74,340.00 loss-of-use costs imposed by the appeal is properly included.

-17- Case 0:15-cv-60716-WPD Document 109 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2016 Page 19 of 24 Mary Kaye Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2905 (3d ed.); see also Fed. R. Civ .P. 62(d) (setting forth the function of a supersedeas bond); Fed. R. App. P. 8 (describing the procedure for moving for a supersedeas bond). If an appellant does not post the supersedeas bond, or otherwise obtain a stay in the enforcement of the judgment, the party who has obtained a judgment may immediately commence enforcement action to collect on the judgment.

LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 states that “a party must ordinarily move first in the district court for the following relief: “… an order … granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.” Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held, in determining whether to grant a stay, that the district courts shall consider the following factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

Fed. R. App. Proc. 7 does not give a district court authority to write Fed. R. App. Proc. 8 out of the rules of federal procedure and require a bond for delay costs as a precondition for appeal. American President Lines, 779 F.2d at 718-19.