Filed: Jul. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Native Village of Naknek's ("Naknek") motion for stay pending appeal (Dkt. 57). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 19, 2014, Naknek filed a complaint against Defendants H
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL BENJAMIN H. SETTLE , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Native Village of Naknek's ("Naknek") motion for stay pending appeal (Dkt. 57). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 19, 2014, Naknek filed a complaint against Defendants Ha..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Native Village of Naknek's ("Naknek") motion for stay pending appeal (Dkt. 57). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 19, 2014, Naknek filed a complaint against Defendants Harvey B. Jones and Jones Pacific Maritime, LLC's (collectively "Jones") in personam and the ship F/V SEAHORSE ("SEAHORSE") in rem in an action to clear title to SEAHORSE and restore her possession to Naknek. Dkt. 1. Naknek also filed an emergency motion for arrest of the vessel SEAHORSE. Dkt. 2. On September 18, 2014, the Court granted Naknek's motion. Dkt. 6. On October 7, 2014, the SEAHORSE was arrested. Dkt. 11.
On December 11, 2014, Naknek moved for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 19. On March 16, 2015, the Court denied Naknek's motion. Dkt. 28.
On March 26, 2015, Jones filed the motion for an order to show cause requesting that the Court release the vessel. Dkt. 30. On June 1, 2015, the Court released the vessel under certain conditions. Dkt. 50.
On June 29, 2015, Naknek filed a notice of appeal informing the Court that it appeals "the findings made in the Order Releasing Vessel entered on June 1, 2015 at Docket 50." Dkt. 54.
On July 2, 2015, Naknek filed a motion for stay pending appeal. Dkt. 57. On July 13, 2015, Jones responded. Dkt. 58. On July 17, 2015, Naknek replied. Dkt. 61.
II. DISCUSSION
"A party seeking a stay must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief, that the balance of equities tip in his favor, and that a stay is in the public interest." Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Gutierrez, 558 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2009).
In this case, Naknek has failed to meet its burden to stay this proceeding. With regard to the likelihood of success on the merits, Naknek mischaracterizes the Court's order. Naknek asserts that it is appealing
three decisions made by the Court: (1) that Washington's chattel lien statute's application to maritime liens is not preempted by federal law; (2) that the Supplemental Rule D and E claims by the parties are not issues in admiralty; and (3) that Naknek was required to satisfy the standards for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to prevent the release of the Vessel from arrest.
Dkt. 57 at 5. No order from this Court has concluded "that Washington's chattel lien statute's application to maritime liens is not preempted by federal law." The Court, however, has ruled that "Naknek has failed to show that Washington's statute is preempted by federal law" and that Naknek has "one remaining argument that . . . could result in a finding that the state law is preempted." Dkt. 50 at 3. To the extent that Naknek is appealing the Court's ruling that Naknek has so far failed to establish preemption, it seems that Naknek should have appealed the Court's order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings and that the time period for appealing that order has passed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (appeal must be filed "30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from"). Regardless, Naknek has failed to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits because there is an absence of precedent on the novel questions of law that the Court considered in Naknek's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
With regard to Naknek's assertions that the Court held that maritime law does not apply to this matter, the assertion is completely without merit. Maritime law does not apply to state law claims that Jones failed to perfect his state law liens. Moreover, traditional standards of preliminary relief apply to state law claims for relief. Therefore, Naknek has failed to show success on the merits of these alleged errors as well.
With regard to irreparable harm, the Court released the vessel under certain conditions intending to balance any potential harm to Naknek with Jones's right to use the vessel during the course of this proceeding. The Court explicitly invited motions to modify the conditions, and Naknek has so far declined to request any additional conditions. Therefore, the Court finds that Naknek has failed to show irreparable harm in the absence of a stay.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Naknek's motion for stay pending appeal (Dkt. 57) is DENIED.
