National Labor Relations Board v. Raleigh Restaurant Concepts, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 10/27/2016. (Briggeman, N.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-438-D

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
BOARD,
Petitioner,

v.
RALEIGH RESTAURANT CONCEPTS,
INC.
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

On August 12, 2016, the court issued an order enforcing the National Labor Relations
Board's ("NLRB") subpoena duces tecum [D.E. 23]. On September 8, 2016, Raleigh Restaurant
Concepts, Inc. ("Raleigh Restaurant Concepts") moved to stay the enforcement order [D .E. 23].
Raleigh Restaurant Concepts seeks the stay pending its appeal to the United States Court ofAppeals
for the Fourth Circuit. See [D.E. 25, 26]. On September 27, 2016, the NLRB responded in
opposition [D.E. 31]. As explained below, the court denies the motion to stay.
In considering a motion to stay pending appeal, a court must consider (1) whether the movant
has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be
irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether granting a stay would irreparably harm other parties
interested in the proceeding; and (4) whether granting the stay would serve the public interest. See,
~' Nken v.

Holder, 556 U.S. 418,434 (2009); Hitton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

The court has considered the entire record and governing law. Raleigh Restaurant Concepts
has not made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits. See [D.E. 23]. Raleigh
Restaurant Concepts will not suffer ari.y irreparable harm absent the stay. Producing the documents

will not moot Raleigh Restaurant Concepts' appeal.

See,~' EEOC v. Aerotek. Inc.,

815 F .3d 328,

332 (7thCir. 2016); United Statesv. Am. Target Advert.. Inc., 257F.3d348, 350n.1 (4thCir. 2001);
Reich v. Nat'l Eng'g & Contracting Co., 13 F.3d 93,97-98 (4th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, although
granting a stay would not irreparably harm the NLRB or anyone else interested in the proceeding,
a stay would not advance the public interest.

See,~'

George Banta Co.. Inc. v. NLRB, 604 F.2d

830, 835 (4th Cir. 1979) (noting that prompt disposition of alleged unfair labor practices is in the
public interest).
In sum, the motion to stay [D.E. 25] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED. This

11 day of October 2016.

2