WARMAN et al v. LOCAL YOKELS FUDGE, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHRISTOPHER M. WARMAN, TRUST
FOR FAMILY OF CHRISTOPHER
WARMAN, CHOCOLATE MOONSHINE,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
LOCAL YOKELS FUDGE, LLC,
CHRISTINE FALVO, CHARLES BRIAN
GRIFFIN, DONALD KONIECZNY, CM
CHOCOLATIER, LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action 2:19-1224
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants Local Yokels Fudge, LLC, Christine Falvo, Charles Brian Griffin, Donald
Konieczny and CM Chocolatier, LLC have filed a Motion to Retain Bonds Pending Disposition
of Appellate-Fee Application (ECF No. 507). Plaintiffs Christopher Warman, Trust for Family of
Christopher Warman and Chocolate Moonshine oppose the motion and request that the Court order
that the bonds be released from the Court’s registry.
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion will be granted.
I. 	Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiffs brought this action alleging claims of trade secret misappropriation, trademark
infringement and copyright infringement relating to a recipe for fudge. On December 27, 2022,
the Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the trademark infringement
and 	copyright 	infringement 	claims 	(ECF 	Nos. 	159-60). 	Subsequently, 	the 	trade 	secret
misappropriation claims proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in Plaintiffs’ favor (ECF No.
Case 2:19-cv-01224-PLD Document 513 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 6

2
288) and on December 2, 2024, the Court entered judgment on these claims in the amount of
$237,706.00 (ECF No. 423).
The Court entered an order on December 26, 2024 (ECF No. 434) granting Defendants’
Consent Motion for Expedited Order Setting and Approving Cash Bond Pursuant to Rule 62(b)
(ECF No. 431). The stay was conditioned on Defendants posting a cash bond equal to 120% of the
jury award. (ECF No. 434.) The Court directed CM Chocolatier, LLC to deposit $110,314.80, and
Local Yokels Fudge, LLC to deposit $174,932.40, into the Court’s registry. (ECF No. 435.)
Defendants made those deposits on December 30, 2024. (ECF Nos. 445, 446).
On April 16, 2025, the Court awarded Defendants attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount
of $174,119.64 against Plaintiffs with respect to Plaintiffs’ trademark and copyright infringement
claims. (ECF Nos. 473-74.) The Court later entered a supplemental award of attorneys’ fees to
Defendants in the amount of $24,788.00. (ECF Nos. 490-91.) Together, the two awards total
$198,907.64 (the “Fee Awards”). On April 22, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ post-trial
motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. (ECF Nos. 479-82.)
Plaintiffs appealed the Fee Awards (ECF No. 486) and Defendants cross-appealed the
denial of their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the trade secret claim and motion
for a new trial (ECF No. 488) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Nos. 25-
1935 (lead) and 25-1969 (consolidated).
On July 25, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to stay enforcement of the Fee
Awards pending appeal, ordering that “[t]he stay shall remain in effect until the conclusion of the
appeal.” (ECF No. 496 ¶ 2.) On August 4, 2025, the Court approved (ECF No. 499) the parties’
Stipulation and Order Regarding Plaintiffs’ Bond (ECF No. 498.) That order stayed enforcement
of the Fee Awards “pending any appeals in this matter, including the pending appeals at the United
Case 2:19-cv-01224-PLD Document 513 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 6

3
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Case Nos. 25-1935 and 25-1969).” (ECF No. 499
¶ 2). On August 22, 2025, Plaintiffs posted a bond issued by SureTec Insurance Company in the
amount of $238,689.17, or 120% of the Fee Awards. (ECF No. 500.)
On July 29, 2026, the Third Circuit affirmed both the April 16, 2025 fee order and the April
22, 2025 order denying Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. (ECF No.
503.) The Court of Appeals denied Defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc on August 25, 2026
and issued its mandate on September 2, 2026. (ECF No. 504.)
Defendants then filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses on August 12, 2026
(the “Application”) with the Third Circuit. Their Application seeks $79,222.61 in fees and
expenses that were incurred in defending the fee order on appeal. Warman v. Local Yokels Fudge,
LLC, No. 25-1935, ECF No. 56 (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 2026). Plaintiffs have opposed the Application
(Id. Doc. 57 (3d Cir. Aug. 24, 2026). 	The Application remains pending before the Court of
Appeals.
On September 24, 2026, Defendants filed the pending motion for the Court to retain the
bonds pending the resolution of the Application at the Third Circuit (ECF No. 507). The motion
has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 508, 511).
The parties agree that at this time, Plaintiffs’ judgment of $237,706.00 exceeds Defendants’
Fee Awards of $198,907.64 by the amount of $38,798.36. Thus, if the funds were released now,
Plaintiffs would be entitled to $38,798.36 by way of offset. If, on the other hand, Defendants’
Application is granted in full, their total award will increase to $278,130.25, which exceeds
Plaintiffs’ judgment by $40,424.25. “The right of setoff (also called ‘offset’) allows entities that
owe each other money to apply their mutual debts against each other, thereby avoiding the
Case 2:19-cv-01224-PLD Document 513 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 6

4
absurdity of making A pay B when B owes A.” Citizens Bank of Maryland v. Strumpf, 516 U.S.
16, 18 (1995) (citation omitted).
The subject of the pending motion relates to the parties’ disagreement regarding whether
the bonds should be released now or retained in the Court’s registry pending disposition of
Defendants’ pending Application before the Third Circuit.
II. 	Issuance and Release of Supersedeas Bonds
Rule 62(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: “At any time after
judgment is entered, a party may obtain a stay by providing a bond or other security. The stay takes
effect when the court approves the bond or other security and remains in effect for the time
specified in the bond or other security.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b). “The purpose behind the rule is to
preserve the status quo, while at the same time protecting the prevailing party’s rights pending the
outcome of post-trial motions or appeal.” Ely v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 2017 WL 1493481, at *1
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2017) (citations omitted).
No Rule of Civil Procedure or statute governs the timing of the release of funds deposited
under Rule 62(b), although Title 28 provides that: “No money deposited under section 2041 of this
title shall be withdrawn except by order of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2042. Section 2041 provides that:
“All moneys paid into any court of the United States, or received by the officers thereof, in any
case pending or adjudicated in such court, shall be forthwith deposited with the Treasurer of the
United States or a designated depositary, in the name and to the credit of such court.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2041. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(b) (requiring money paid into court to “be deposited and withdrawn
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041 and 2042.”) Thus, no money deposited into a court’s registry
may be withdrawn except upon order of court.
Case 2:19-cv-01224-PLD Document 513 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 6

5
Defendants correctly argue that no rule or statute requires that an order of release must
issue by a specific date. And the bonds themselves (ECF Nos. 445, 446) contain no language about
how long they are to remain in effect or when the funds are to be released. Plaintiffs’ appeal bond
contains no expiration date or condition of discharge (ECF No. 500). Rather, it refers to the
Stipulation and Order (ECF No. 499), which stated that: “enforcement of the Fee Awards is stayed
pending any appeals in this matter, including the pending appeals at the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit (Case Nos. 25-1935 and 25-1969).” (Id. ¶¶ 1-2.)
The order with respect to Defendants’ bond stated that the funds “shall remain until further
order of Court.” (ECF No. 435.) The order granting Defendants’ Consent Motion for Expedited
Order Setting and Approving Cash Bond Pursuant to Rule 62(b) stayed execution of Plaintiffs’
judgment upon Defendants’ posting of a cash bond equal to 120% of the jury award and indicated
that it “shall remain in effect” until three conditions were met: (1) “decisions are rendered on
Defendants’ pending motions for attorneys’ fees”; (2) “any motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 are decided by this Court”; and (3) “any appeals thereto are resolved.” (ECF
No. 434.)
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ contention that the “appeal” is still pending in the
Third Circuit because of their Application for fees. As Plaintiffs point out, the Application is not
an “appeal” but a separate request for new relief, collateral to the merits, and no award on the
Application would count as a “Fee Award” secured by the bond. At the same time, however,
proceedings remain pending before the Third Circuit that will have an impact on the parties’
respective obligations.
Case 2:19-cv-01224-PLD Document 513 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Thus, given the competing offsets at issue and in order to avoid issues regarding execution
on any award or judgment, the Court concludes that both bonds shall remain in place pending the
resolution of Defendants’ Application before the Court of Appeals.
For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Retain Bonds Pending Disposition of Appellate-
Fee Application (ECF No. 507) will be granted.
An appropriate order follows.
October 14, 2026 	/s/Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:19-cv-01224-PLD Document 513 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 6