Haynes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al
ORDER denying 63 Motion to Stay. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 07/14/2011.(CGC) ***
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DARRYL S. HAYNES,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-11 (CDL)
O R D E R
Chase Bank’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the bank
Order, June 29, 2011, ECF No. 60.
The clerk entered
judgment in favor of the bank and against Haynes the same day.
Judgment, June 29, 2011, ECF No. 61.
Presently pending before
the Court is Haynes’s Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal
(ECF No. 63).
As discussed below, the motion is denied.
For the Court to stay its order pending appeal, Haynes must
show (1) a substantial likelihood that he will prevail on the
merits of the appeal, (2) a substantial risk of irreparable
injury to Haynes unless the stay is granted, (3) no substantial
harm to other interested persons, and (4) no harm to the public
E.g., Touchston v. McDermott, 234 F.3d 1130, 1132
(11th Cir. 2000); accord Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776
Here, a stay is not appropriate because Haynes has not
shown a substantial case on the merits.
Moreover, Haynes has
not shown that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor
of granting the stay.
Though Haynes may suffer irreparable
injury if the bank decides to initiate foreclosure proceedings
interest nor the public interest would be served by
delaying the bank’s ability to pursue its right to initiate a
sale under power.
For all of these reasons, the Court denies Haynes’s Motion
to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (ECF No. 63).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 14th day of July, 2011.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?