Hetland v. Beauchesne et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying #24 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 07/31/2015. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

MATTHEW HETLAND,
RULING & ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:15-mc-00299
v.
TRAVIS BEAUCHESNE, an individual,
iCLICK PROMOTIONS, LLC, a Utah
limited liability company, and PLAYA
NEGRA, a Cost Rica entity of unknown
origins,

United States District Court Judge David
Nuffer
Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead

Defendants.

This matter was referred to this court by District Court Judge David Nuffer pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) (doc. 11). Currently pending is Defendants Travis Beauchesne, iClick
Promotions, LLC and Play Negra’s (collectively “Defendants”) “Motion to Stay” as filed on July
29, 2015 (doc. 24). The motion has been fully briefed and submitted for decision. (doc. 27).
For the reasons now set forth herein, Defendants request is denied.
I.

The stay here would effectively afford injunctive relief.

First, Defendants’ proposed stay would have the practical effect of preventing a sheriff’s
sale set for this afternoon. Defendants have not demonstrated sufficient harm to justify such a
result. Thus, the Court elects not to stay operation of its prior order.
II.

Defendants forfeited their argument in favor of a hearing under Utah Rule of
Civil Procedure 64E.

Defendants did not cite to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 64E in their attempt to seek a
hearing before this Court. (See doc. 8). Defendants likewise did not raise this issue in their reply

memorandum in support of that motion. (See doc. 16). Instead, they raise that argument in their
reply in support of their emergency motion for a stay. 1 (doc. 26.) Accordingly, Defendants have
forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in their initial motion.
III.

A stay pending a hearing would exalt form over substance.

Further, the Court addressed the merits of Defendants’ arguments in its previous order
and found their position to be legally untenable. (doc. 18). Practically speaking, the hearing
Defendants now seek would do nothing but unnecessarily delay the sale scheduled for this
afternoon. The Court did not deny Defendants’ request for a hearing based upon a lack of
evidence, but because their legal theory was incorrect. (See id.) Defendants have not explained to
this Court’s satisfaction that its prior analysis was in error. Thus, a stay is not warranted.
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ “Motion to Stay” is DENIED. (doc. 24).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 31st day of July, 2015.

Dustin B. Pead
United States Magistrate Judge

1

As well as their objection to the District Court. (doc. 23 at 5).
Page 2 of 2