Diedrich v. City of Newport News, Virginia et al

Filing 29

AMENDED ORDER re 24 MOTION to Stay re 22 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Jason Leon Diedrich. The Court finds it absolutely inappropriate to grant a stay, and Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. PLEASE SEE ORDER FOR SPECIFICS. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson on 5/19/16 and filed on 5/20/16. (tbro)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Newport News Division

JASON LEON DIEDRICH,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15cv2

THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS,
VIRGINIA, et. al.,

Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Stay Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, ECF

No. 24. On May 19, 2016, the Court denied the Motion through the electronic filing system
(ECF No. 28). This Order further elucidates the Court's reasoning.

On August 11, 2015, the Court Granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12.
Subsequently, on March 31, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees and
awarded fees in the amount of $10,260. ECF No. 22. Plaintiff now moves this Court for a stay
of the award of attorney fees pending Plaintiffs appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit ("Fourth Circuit").

The parties concede that motions to stay are disfavored in the Fourth Circuit, and that the

Court must consider the following four factors: "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." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S.
1

418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). The burden of
establishing support for each factor falls on the Plaintiff. Long v. Robinson, 432 F.2d 977, 979
(4th Cir. 1970).

Each of the four Nken factors militates against a stay. First, as the Court articulated in the
Memorandum Opinion and Order awarding fees, "[pjlaintiff in this action simply sought to raise
again issues that had been previously raised...Plaintiff s case is the very definition of frivolous,
unreasonable, and without foundation." ECF No. 22 at 6. The Court therefore concludes on the

first factor that the applicant has not made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the
merits. Second, there is no irreparable injury to the Plaintiff absent a stay. Should the Plaintiff
succeed in his appeal, Defendant will simply make payment to the Plaintiff as ordered by the
Court. Third, a stay will substantially injure the Defendants, as they have been defending cases

against this Plaintiff for years and they are lawfully entitled to a just conclusion to this litigation.
Fourth and finally, the public interest lies in the federal courts' dockets being expeditiously
addressed. All cases that come before the Court deserve serious care and consideration—over

the years, this Plaintiff has been given so much more. The Court finds it absolutely inappropriate
to grant a stay, and for these reasons Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
counsel for the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Norfolk, Virginia

RayinDnd/\flackson

May K , 2016

United States District Judge