Whitney v. Pacific Thomas Corporation et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 20, 2014. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
No. C-14-4083 MMC
11

In re

12

PACIFIC THOMAS CORPORATION, dba
THOMAS CAPITAL, dba SAFE STORAGE,

Bankruptcy Case No. 14-54232 MEH
ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S
RENEWED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER

13
Debtor
14
/
15
16

Before the Court is appellant Randall Whitney’s (“Whitney”) “Renewed Motion for

17

Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Stay Pending Appeal Should

18

Not Issue,” filed November 20, 2014, by which appellant seeks a stay pending his appeal of

19

the Bankruptcy Court’s order directing appellant to expunge certain notices of lis pendens

20

by November 20, 2014. The Court denied Whitney’s original motion, on the ground Whitney

21

failed to first seek such relief from the Bankruptcy Court. (See “Order Denying Appellant’s

22

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,” filed November 18, 2014.)

23

In support of the instant motion, appellant states he has now sought such relief from

24

the Bankruptcy Court, and that his request was denied. Assuming appellant’s description

25

of the events occurring at the bankruptcy court is correct, the Court now turns to the merits

26

of the motion and rules as follows.

27
28

Having read and considered the above-referenced filings, the Court finds Whitney
has failed to show good cause for the relief sought thereby. In particular, Whitney has

1

failed to show the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of his request for a stay was an abuse of

2

discretion. See In re Wymer, 5 B.R. 802, 803-04 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1980) (finding appellant

3

failed to demonstrate abuse of discretion by trial judge; noting all stays other than those

4

staying enforcement of money judgment are discretionary).

5

Accordingly, Whitney’s renewed motion is hereby DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: November 20, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2