Rios v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 276 Plaintiff/Appellant Abby Rios's Motion to Stay Execution of Order is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant post a bond in the amount of $26,400.28 or deposit the full amount with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that 286 Agwara's Emergency Motion for Order Directing Plaintiff's Counsel to Deposit Attorney's Lien Funds with Court is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/11/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:11-cv-01592-KJD-CWH
LIBORIOUS AGWARA, Esquire,
Ninth Circuit App. No. 20-15701
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff/Appellant Abby Rios’s Motion to Stay Execution
of Order (#276). Appellee Liborious Agwara filed a response in opposition (#281) to which
Appellant replied (#283). Also, before the Court is Agwara’s Emergency Motion for Order
Directing Plaintiff’s Counsel to Deposit Attorney’s Lien Funds with Court (#286). Appellant
filed a response in opposition (#287) to which Agwara replied (#288).
“A stay is not a matter of right.... It is instead ‘an exercise of judicial discretion’ ... [that]
‘is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.’ ” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418,
433 (2009) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S.
658, 672–73 (1926)). Judicial discretion in exercising a stay is guided by the following four
factor analysis: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to
succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3)
whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 434 (citing Hilton v. Braunskill, 481
U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the
circumstances justify an exercise of [this Court's] discretion.” Id. at 433–34. The first two
factors are the most critical.
Here, the Court finds that the factors counsel in favor of granting a stay. First, Appellant
has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. First, Agwara has done little to
show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his appeal. Second, Agwara is unlikely to get to
the merits of his appeal, because he has been barred from the practice of law but filed the appeal
on behalf of the business entity to which the judgment was awarded. Agwara has not made a
strong showing that he will survive the pending motion to dismiss at the Court of Appeals. The
second factor neither counsels in favor of or against granting a stay because money damages are
available. Third, because Appellant is willing to post a bond Agwara faces little danger of injury.
Finally, the public interest lies in preserving the assets at issue for award upon resolution of the
Therefore, the Court grants Appellants motion for stay of judgment pending appeal.
Appellant is ordered to either post a bond in the amount of the judgment or deposit the full
amount of the award on the attorney’s lien, $26,400.28 (#268) with the Clerk of the Court within
fourteen (14) days of the entry of this order. Grant of the stay and posting of the bond or deposit
with the registry of the court makes Agwara’s emergency motion moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff/Appellant Abby Rios’s Motion to
Stay Execution of Order (#276) is GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant post a bond in the amount of $26,400.28 or
deposit the full amount with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Agwara’s Emergency Motion for Order Directing
Plaintiff’s Counsel to Deposit Attorney’s Lien Funds with Court (#286) is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2021.
Kent J. Dawson
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?