
    DIRECTV, Plaintiff, v. Alfred HAINES, Defendant.
    No. CIV. 03-71001.
    United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.
    Oct. 8, 2003.
    Norman C. Ankers, Bradley H. Darling, Honigman, Miller, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff Counsel.
    Alfred Haines, In-Pro-Per, Monroe, MI, for Defendant Counsel.
   OPINION AND ORDER

FEIKENS, District Judge.

Defendant Haines requests judicial notice be taken of a bond he has executed for the benefit of plaintiff DirecTV, and requests a stay in proceedings until DirecTV posts a similar bond for his benefit. Because such a bond is not required by law, I deny both motions.

I. Analysis

Defendant Haines argues that any time a party files claims or counterclaims against another party, the filing party is required to post a bond to indemnify the other party for damages incurred as a result of the claims. However, such a bond is required only if the court issues a preliminary injunction against one of the parties. These bonds are intended as compensation if the restrained party is proven to be in the right, and therefore the court-imposed restraints were wrongful. F.R.C.P. 65(c). Because no preliminary injunctions have issued in this case, and therefore no party is currently restrained by this Court, no bond is required.

II. Conclusion

Defendant’s motions for judicial notice and a stay of proceedings are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.  