Moya v. U.S. Eagle Federal Credit Union et al
ORDER by District Judge Robert C. Brack denying 25 Motion to Stay (jjs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CYNTHIA MOYA ,
No. 17cv415 RB/KBM
U.S. EAGLE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION and
PHILIP J. MONTOYA, Trustee,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Cynthia Moya’s Presentment for Stay
Pending Appeal (Doc. 25), filed June 21, 2017.
Cynthia Moya’s bankruptcy case, United States Bankruptcy Court Case No. 16-13074,
was dismissed on March 23, 2017. (See Doc. 1 at 5–6.) On April 5, 2017, the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico filed the Clerk’s Certificate which indicates that
Ms. Moya is appealing the dismissal of her case, Case No. 16-13074, and elects to have the appeal
heard by the United States District Court rather than by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. (See id. at
On May 24, 2017, Ms. Moya filed a Presentment for Stay Pending Appeal, Doc. 73 in her
bankruptcy case. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(a)(1) (a party requesting the stay of a bankruptcy
court’s order pending appeal of that order generally “must move first in the bankruptcy court”).
Courts consider the following factors when determining whether to grant a motion for stay
pending appeal: “the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the
appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury unless the stay is
granted; (3) whether granting the stay will result in substantial harm to the other parties to the
appeal; and (4) the effect of granting the stay upon the public interest.” Lang v. Lang (In re
Lang), 305 B.R. 905, 911 (10th Cir. BAP 2004) (citations omitted). The party requesting a stay
pending appeal must satisfy all four factors to obtain a stay pending appeal. In re Sunland, Inc.,
507 B.R. 753, 765 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2014) (citing Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 2013 WL
141791, *20 (5th Cir. Jan 14, 2013); In re Sunflower Racing, Inc., 225 B.R. 225, 227 (D. Kan.
The Bankruptcy Court denied Ms. Moya’s request for a stay pending appeal because she
“failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal or irreparable harm if the
Dismissal Order is not stayed.” No. 16-13074, Doc. 79 at 4 (Bankr. D.N.M. May 25, 2017).
Ms. Moya’s motion to this Court for a stay pending appeal is identical to her Presentment
for Stay Pending Appeal in her bankruptcy case. See No. 16-13074, Doc. 73 (Bankr. D.N.M.
May 24, 2017). This Court agrees with the Bankruptcy Court’s findings that Ms. Moya failed to
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal and irreparable harm if the
Dismissal Order is not stayed. The Court will, therefore, deny Ms. Moya’s request for a stay
IT IS ORDERED that Cynthia Moya’s Presentment for Stay Pending Appeal, Doc. 25,
filed June 21, 2017, is DENIED.
ROBERT C. BRACK
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?