ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY JUDGMENT

[ECF No. 23]

BARRY TED MOSKOWTIZ, District Judge.

Before the Court is Respondent Robert Steven Mawhinney's request for leave to move for a stay of the Court's Order and Judgment (ECF Nos. 18, 19) pending Respondent's appeal before the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 23). For reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

In determining whether to issue a stay of a judgment pending appeal, relevant factors include: (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." Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).

The Court concludes Respondent is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his appeal, and there is no just reason to stay the Court's judgment confirming the arbitration award. The Ninth Circuit previously held that the claims between Mawhinney and American were properly subject to arbitration. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018). The Ninth Circuit denied Mawhinney's petition for rehearing en banc, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mawhinney's petition for a writ of certiorari. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 16-55006 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2018); Mawhinney v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 18-1032 2019 WL 485453 (Mem) (U.S. Apr. 1, 2019). The Court confirmed the arbitration award and closed the case, effectively leaving no proceeding or other action to "stay." (ECF Nos. 18, 19). Respondent is unlikely to succeed on the merits, and the remaining factors all weigh against granting the stay of the Court's judgment. Respondent's Motion is accordingly DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.