United States of America v. Real Property at 6557 Ascot Drive, Oakland, Califo

Filing 271

ORDER by Judge Jeffrey S. White denying 262 Motion to Stay (jswlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. REAL PROPERTY AT 6557 ASCOT DRIVE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, Defendant, STEVEN FONTAINE and NILOUFER FONTAINE, Claimants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL No. C 02-4948 JSW United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Now before the Court is the motion to stay pending appeal filed claimants Steven Fontaine and Niloufer Fontaine ("Claimants"). Having considered the parties' papers, relevant legal authority, the record in this case, the Court hereby denies Claimants' motion for a stay. ANALYSIS The Court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff United States of America ("Plaintiff") and entered judgment in its favor. Claimants now move to stay enforcement of judgment pending their appeal. It is within this Court's discretion to determine whether it should stay these proceedings pending appeal. Britton v. Co-Op Banking Group, 916 F.2d 1405, 1412 & n.8 (9th Cir. 1990). In the Ninth Circuit, "[t]he standard for evaluating stays pending appeal is similar to that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction." Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (setting forth four factors governing issuance of stay pending appeal: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies"). The Ninth Circuit uses "two interrelated legal tests for the issuance of preliminary injunction." Lopez, 713 F.2d at 1435. Thus, a moving party may either show a "probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury" or "demonstrate that serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor." Id. Having considered the parties' arguments, and in light of the sliding scale used by the Ninth Circuit in evaluating whether stays should be granted, the Court finds that Claimants have failed to demonstrate that the balance of hardships tips sharply in their favor or that serious legal questions are presented. Accordingly, exercising its discretion, the Court DENIES Claimants' motion. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for summary judgment. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the United States' motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED NUNC PRO TUNC TO MARCH 30, 2009. Dated: JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?