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
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?