Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma grants a class’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1 to enforce liability against security providers supporting a supersedeas bond and guaranty. The court holds that the bond and guaranty covered the prior appeal in the Tenth Circuit and any related Supreme Court review, but not a later appeal from the amended judgment. Because Sunoco did not pay within the period specified after the prior appeal concluded, the court enforces the security providers’ liability and invites further briefing concerning potential sanctions and liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Holdings

1. The bond and guaranty applied to Tenth Circuit Appeal No. 23-7090 and any Supreme Court petition arising from that specific appeal, not to Sunoco's later appeal from the amended judgment.
2. Because Sunoco did not pay within the period specified after the deadline to seek Supreme Court review of the Tenth Circuit's November 17, 2025 decision, the court could enforce the security provider's liability under Rule 65.1.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the supersedeas bond and parent guaranty remained in effect during Sunoco's later appeal from the amended judgment.
2. Whether the bond and guaranty required Sunoco or the security provider to pay after Sunoco failed to pay within seven days after the deadline for seeking Supreme Court review of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Appeal No. 23-7090.
3. Whether the court should address potential sanctions or liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for litigation-related delay and excess costs.

Disposition

other