Haynes v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 63 Motion to Stay. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 07/14/2011.(CGC) ***

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION DARRYL S. HAYNES, * Plaintiff, * vs. * JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., CASE NO. 3:10-CV-11 (CDL) * * Defendants. * O R D E R On June 29, 2011, the Court granted Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank’s motion for summary judgment, finding that the bank has a right property. to foreclose on Plaintiff Darryl Order, June 29, 2011, ECF No. 60. S. Haynes’s 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 interest. E.g., Touchston v. McDermott, 234 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 2000); accord Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). 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 during the pendency of Haynes’s appeal, neither the interest nor the public interest would be served by bank’s further 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 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?