The court had previously ruled that a judgment lien against real property owned by debtor in California had not been properly perfected. Lien holders appealed that ruling, without providing a supersedeas bond or releasing the lien, although they did file a copy of the bankruptcy court's order regarding the lien in California. In an adversary proceeding against the lien holders, debtor sought an order compelling defendants to either release the lien or provide a $2.6 million bond. Relying on a California statute that it had inaccurately quoted, debtor argued that defendants were statutorily required to release their lien. The court found that, once the portions of the statute omitted by debtor were included, it was clear that the statute had no applicability to the dispute before it. The court further found that debtor had failed to establish a need for a supersedeas bond, and that the status quo was best maintained by allowing the lien to remain recorded, especially since the filing of the court's previous judgment would inform interested parties of the lien's status. Finally, the court determined that debtor's attorney had misquoted the statute with the intent to mislead the court, which warranted sanctions under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011.