Facebook, Inc. v. OnLineNic Inc.

No. 19-cv-07071-SI (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2025) · United States District Court for the Northern District of California · July 1, 2025 · No. 19-cv-07071-SI

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted and partially denied plaintiffs’ motion for civil contempt sanctions and appeal bond, denied the defendant’s motion to stay proceedings pending appeal, and denied a motion to seal. The court authorized Leascend Technology Co., Ltd. to purge its contempt by paying the judgment and costs or depositing $5.5 million into a U.S. escrow account. The court imposed a $1,000 daily fine, ordered deactivation of a specified website, awarded plaintiffs reasonable contempt-related attorneys’ fees and costs, and required a $7,500 appeal bond.

Holdings

  1. Leascend may purge its civil contempt by either paying the final judgment and taxed costs or depositing $5.5 million in a United States escrow account to secure satisfaction of the judgment.
  2. The court imposed a $1,000 daily fine until Leascend purges the contempt, ordered Verisign to deactivate leasdgrp.com until the contempt is purged, and ordered Leascend to pay plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in enforcing the contempt order.
  3. Leascend's motion to stay further proceedings pending appeal was denied.
  4. Leascend was ordered to post a $7,500 appeal bond, and the court declined to include attorneys' fees in the bond.
  5. The administrative motion to seal was denied, and plaintiffs were ordered to re-file the unredacted materials on the public docket within seven days.

Questions Presented

  1. What remedies were appropriate for Leascend's violation of the December 20, 2024 escrow order?
  2. Whether Leascend should be permitted to purge its civil contempt by paying the judgment and costs or depositing $5.5 million into a United States escrow account.
  3. Whether Leascend was entitled to a stay of further proceedings pending appeal.
  4. Whether Leascend should be required to post an appeal bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, and in what amount.
  5. Whether material submitted in connection with the contempt-remedies motion should be sealed.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (15)

  • Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 265 (9th Cir. 1984)(followed)
  • Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 465 (9th Cir. 1989)(followed)
  • Wolfard Glassblowing Co. v. Vanbragt, 118 F.3d 1320, 1322 (9th Cir. 1997)(followed)
  • In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • Verizon Cal. Inc. v. Online NIC, Inc., 647 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2009)(followed)
  • Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 404 (9th Cir. 1976)(followed)
  • F.T.C. v. EDebitPay, LLC, 695 F.3d 938, 945 (9th Cir. 2012)(followed)
  • S.E.C. v. Hickey, 322 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
  • Bright v. Mirant Corp., 596 F.3d 693, 696 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…