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) ***

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