Marin v. Billingslea

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 20 Ex Parte Motion to Stay. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 2/26/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
Case No. 12-CV-2482-IEG (WVG)
9

MEL M. MARIN,
Bankruptcy No. SD 11-11223-PB13

10

Appellant,

11
12

ORDER DENYING BROTHER’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO STAY

vs.

[Doc. No. 20]

THOMAS H. BILLINGSLEA,

13

Appellee.

14
15
16
17
18
19

This case comes before the Court on an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of California. [See Doc. No. 1.] On February 15, 2013, Appellant filed an ex
parte motion for the imposition of a stay in the bankruptcy court preventing the proposed February
17, 2013 foreclosure sale of Appellant’s sister’s home.1 [Doc. No. 20.] For the reasons below,
Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

DISCUSSION
“When deciding whether to issue a discretionary stay pending a bankruptcy appeal, courts
use the following four factors: (1) Movant’s likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; (2)
significant and/or irreparable harm that will come to Movant absent a stay; (3) harm to the adverse
party if a stay is granted; and (4) where the public interest lies.” In re North Plaza, LLC, 395 B.R.
113, 119 (S.D. Cal. 2008). Though these factors ostensibly mirror the standard for preliminary
injunctions, the Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale” preliminary injunction approach is not applicable

27
28

1

Appellant’s sister, Jordana Bauman, is prosecuting a parallel appeal before this Court.
[See Southern District of California Case No. 12-CV-2476.]
-1-

12cv2482

here.2 Id. Rather, on the present motion, Appellant bears the burden of “show[ing] that it is more
1

likely than not they will succeed on the merits, whatever the possibility of irreparable injury.” Id.

2

Appellant fails to show any likelihood of success on the merits. The entirety of his

3

showing in this regard reduces to two statements: (1) that “the Bankruptcy Court violated due

4

process in failing to identify what was wrong with brother’s draft bankruptcy plan;” and (2) that

5

“[i]t is not necessary to produce the transcript of the October 19, 2011 hearing now.” [Doc. No. 20

6

at 18.] Appellant’s motion makes no attempt to explain the significance of either of these

7

statements, nor how these statements relate to, much support a likely success on, the merits of the

8

appeal. [Id.] As Appellant makes no showing of likelihood of success on the merits, Appellant

9

fails to carry his burden on the present motion to stay.

10

Moreover, even under the more lenient preliminary injunction standard, Plaintiff’s showing

11

fails to warrant a stay. “[I]n the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits, loss of property

12

alone is not sufficient for a TRO.” Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 574, at *4-5

13

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012.) And “it is not in the public interest to delay a foreclosure and afford relief

14

to those deserving security on a defaulted loan.” Beutel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist.

15

LEXIS 121486, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011) (citing Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 U.S.

16

Dist. LEXIS 86611, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011)). Thus, even if losing one’s home qualifies as

17

irreparable harm and the balance of hardships tips toward Appellant, the utter lack of any showing

18

of success on the merits dooms the present motion to stay. See Johnson v. California State Bd. of

19

Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips

20

decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a

21

fair chance of success on the merits.’”).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25
2

26
27
28

“A ‘sliding scale’ approach, which often results in disproportionately weighting the
‘irreparable harm’ prong, is appropriate for preliminary injunctions because a court deals with the
dispute on first impressions, relies on a less-than-developed factual and legal record, and will
ultimately revisit the issue down the road. In contrast, where—as here—a court has taken extensive
evidence and briefing and issued a determination on the merits, an interest in finality arises.” Id. “This
finality would be rendered impotent if an enjoined party could always raise the spectre of irreparable
injury to trump the trial court’s order, no matter how unlikely an appellate victory on the merits.” Id.
-2-

12cv2482

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

DATED:

February 26, 2013

______________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

12cv2482