In re: Philip O. Emiabata

Filing 11

ORDER denying Appellant's 8 Motion for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (TH) (cc: Appellant via U.S. Mail)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

In re: PHILLIP O. EMIABATA,

11

Appellant,

12
13

v.

CASE NO. C17-1752 MJP
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY
EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
PENDING APPEAL

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, and AVAIL 1 LLC,

14
Appellees.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The Court has received and reviewed
1. Appellant’s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment Pending Appeal (Dkt. No. 8),
2. Avail 1 LLC’s Response (Dkt. No. 9),
3. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC’s Response (Dkt. No. 10),
all attached declarations and exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, and rules as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
Appellant requests stay of an order entered by the Bankruptcy Court of the Western
District of Washington granting relief to Appellees from the bankruptcy stay. See Bankruptcy

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT - 1

1

Case No. 17-13905-TWD. In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the moving

2

party must satisfy a four-factor test:

3
4
5
6

(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 a stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 426 (2009).

7

Appellant has not succeeded in establishing a single one of these factors. To the extent

8

that the Court can decipher his rambling, disjointed pleading, it is not at all apparent that he has

9

any proof of the “violations” he alleges, nor that he will succeed on the merits of his case. His

10

“irreparable injury” appears to be related to a malpractice claim against his counsel, a connection

11

which is entirely illogical. Nor is the Court persuaded by his argument that the Appellees will

12

not be harmed by a stay. Appellees’ statement of the facts (which Appellant has not

13

controverted) establishes a lengthy delay in enforcing their rights to property which Appellant

14

has charged rent on without paying a mortgage for approximately a decade. The Court finds that

15

a stay would substantially injure the non-moving parties, and would most certainly not serve the

16

public interest.

17

Therefore, Appellant’s motion for stay of execution of judgment is DENIED.

18
19

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Appellant and to all counsel.

20

Dated: January 17, 2018.

21
22
23

A
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT - 2