Stewart v. Washington State University

Filing 63

ORDER denying 62 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.(MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

DOMINIQUE STEWART, an individual,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C18-557-RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
PENDING APPEAL

v.
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, a
state educational institute,
Defendant.

17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Dominique Stewart’s Motion to Stay

18

Enforcement of Cost Bill Pending Appeal. Dkt. #62. The Court has determined that it can rule

19
20
21

on this Motion without responsive briefing.
On April 23, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s Bill of

22

Costs. Dkt. #61. The total costs taxed against Ms. Stewart is $1,827.16. Id. Ms. Stewart’s

23

appeal of the Court’s dismissal of her claims is currently pending. Dkt. #57. Ms. Stewart now

24
25
26

moves to stay enforcement of the above costs. Her counsel attests, via declaration, that Ms.
Stewart is currently employed by Yelp in New York and “able to pay the amount ordered by

27

the Court (Dkt. 61) and will likely remain solvent to do so throughout the appeal.” Dkt. #62-1

28

(“Bremner Decl.”) at ¶ 3. Ms. Stewart provides no other facts for the Court to consider.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL - 1

1

The instant Motion argues that “the status quo of the case should remain while the

2

appeal is decided.” Dkt. #62 at 3 (citing cases deferring motions for attorney’s fees until after

3

appeal). The Motion asserts that “[e]nforcement of the costs bill may result in the Court having

4

to unravel its imposition should its decision be overturned.” Dkt. #62 at 3. Although the

5
6
7

briefing speaks at length about whether Ms. Stewart should have to post a bond if this Motion
is granted, there is no other discussion or argument justifying the granting of a stay.

8

A stay pending appeal is not a matter of right, but rather “an exercise of judicial

9

discretion” that depends upon “the circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556

10
11
12

U.S. 418, 433, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 173 L. Ed. 2d 550 (2009). The question of whether a stay
pending appeal is warranted requires consideration of four factors: “(1) whether the stay

13

applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the

14

applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will

15

substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public

16

interest lies.” Id. at 426 (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S. Ct. 2113, 95 L.

17
18

Ed. 2d 724 (1987)); see also Waine-Golston v. Time Warner Entm't-Advance/New House P'ship,

19

Case No. 11cv1057, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65118, 2013 WL 1899928 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2013)

20

(applying this standard to a motion to stay enforcement of a bill of costs pending appeal).

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Ms. Stewart provides practically no explanation or argument for deviating from the
presumption that the cost bill should be enforced in this matter. It is not enough to argue that
the status quo should be preserved, or that any money that exchanges hands now will have to be
handed back after a successful appeal. Such arguments could be made in every case.
Although the important question of likelihood of success on appeal is left unaddressed
by the briefing, the Court is also interested in the impact to Ms. Stewart of enforcing this bill of

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL - 2

1

costs now rather than down the road.

The reasons this Motion was filed are unclear.

2

Considering the typical expense of federal litigation, this is a very small amount of money to

3

hold up on appeal. The Court has not heard from Ms. Stewart herself as to why this Motion

4

was filed or how this roughly $1800 bill would affect her. The Court agrees that Ms. Stewart

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

can afford to pay this bill now and assumes—without hearing anything to the contrary from her
attorney—that she can pay this bill without significant inconvenience. Given all of the above,
the Court finds that Ms. Stewart has failed to meet her burden on this Motion.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing, attached declarations, and the remainder of the
record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Dominique Stewart’s Motion to Stay
Enforcement of Cost Bill Pending Appeal, Dkt. #62, is DENIED.

13
14

DATED this 13 day of May, 2019.

15
16
17
18

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL - 3