ARAKJI v. HESS, 15-cv-00681-CMA-MJW. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20150714715
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STAY CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO , District Judge . Plaintiff seeks a stay of the Court's orders overruling his objections to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe's Minute Orders pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 1 (Doc. ## 97; 98.) In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, a court must consider the following factors: "(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on t
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STAY CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO , District Judge . Plaintiff seeks a stay of the Court's orders overruling his objections to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe's Minute Orders pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 1 (Doc. ## 97; 98.) In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, a court must consider the following factors: "(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on th..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO STAY
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, District Judge.
Plaintiff seeks a stay of the Court's orders overruling his objections to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe's Minute Orders pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.1 (Doc. ## 97; 98.)
In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, a court must consider the following factors: "(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will suffer irreparable injury unless the stay is granted; (3) whether granting the stay will result in substantial harm to the other parties to the appeal; and (4) the effect of granting the stay upon the public interest." In re Lang, 414 F.3d 1191, 1201 (10th Cir. 2005).
In this case, the Court found that Plaintiff had not established a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of his appeal because Rule 26 allows a court to set the date by which a party must make the initial disclosures. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Thus, it is extremely unlikely that the United States Supreme Court would grant a Writ of Certiorari. Additionally, Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable injury if the stay is denied. Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Stay (Doc. ## 97; 98) are DENIED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff titled his motions: Motion for a Stay of the Order Overruling Plaintiff's [74] Objection/Appeal of Decision of Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 90) Pending Conclusion of Order Overruling Plaintiff's [50] and [64] Objections to Magistrate Judge's April 30, 2015 and May 22, 2015 Minute Orders (Doc. # 97) and Motion for Stay of the Order Overruling Plaintiff's [50] and [64] Objections to Magistrate Judge's April 30, 2015 and May 22, 2015 Minute Orders (Docket No. 69) Pending Filing Application for Petition for Certiorari with the Superem [sic] Court of the United States (Doc. # 98).
Source: Leagle
