Niemi et al v. Burgess et al

Filing 69

ORDER. The Emergency Motion of the Innovatis Defendants to Suspend Courts June 1, 2012, Preliminary Injunction Order Pending Appeal 53 is DENIED. By Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/20/2012.(sahsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00869-RBJ
JOHN NIEMI,
ROBERT NAEGELE, III, and
JESPER PARNEVIK
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL FRANK BURGESS,
ERWIN LASSHOFER
INNOVATIS GMBH,
INNOVATIS IMMOBILIEN GMBH,
INNOVATIS ASSET MANAGEMENT SA,
LEXINGTON CAPITAL & PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, and
BARRY FUNT,
Defendants.

ORDER
On June 1, 2012 this Court issued a written order granting a preliminary injunction on
terms set forth in the order. On June 5, 2012 the “Innovatis defendants” filed a notice of appeal
from that order. A number of motions have been filed in this Court since the granting of the
preliminary injunction’ [docket ##52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 67]. Included in this group is “Emergency
Motion of the Innovatis Defendants to Suspend Court’s June 1, 2012, Preliminary Injunction
Order Pending Appeal’’ [docket #53].
While the filing of an appeal generally divests the district court of jurisdiction, this Court
may suspend the injunction while an appeal from its order granting the injunction is pending.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). Further, a party must ordinarily move first in the district court for a stay of

1

a district court order pending appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A). Assuming that this Court does
have jurisdiction to address the emergency motion to suspend its preliminary injunction order,
the motion is DENIED.
DATED this 19th day of June, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2