Filed: Nov. 17, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DALE A. KIMBALL , District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants's Motion for a Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 409], Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 413], and the Recreation Groups' Joinder in Motions for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 417]. The motions are fully briefed and the court concludes that oral argument would not sign
Summary: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DALE A. KIMBALL , District Judge . This matter is before the court on Defendants's Motion for a Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 409], Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 413], and the Recreation Groups' Joinder in Motions for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 417]. The motions are fully briefed and the court concludes that oral argument would not signi..
More
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
DALE A. KIMBALL, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Defendants's Motion for a Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 409], Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 413], and the Recreation Groups' Joinder in Motions for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 417]. The motions are fully briefed and the court concludes that oral argument would not significantly aid the court in its determination of the motions.
Under Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, "[a] party must ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . a stay of the judgment or order of the district court pending appeal." Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that while different rules of procedure govern the power of district courts and courts of appeals to stay an order pending appeal, the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: "(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).1
For the reasons more fully set forth in Plaintiffs's Response to Defendants' Motion for a Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 423], the court concludes that Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors have not shown (1) that they are likely to succeed on appeal, (2) that they will suffer irreparable injury if the court's Remedy Order is not stayed pending appeal, (3) that Plaintiffs will not be irreparably harmed by a stay, or (4) that the stay is in the public interest.
Because the court adopts the reasoning set forth by Plaintiffs, Defendants's Motion for a Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 409], Defendant-Intervenors' Motion for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 413], and the Recreation Groups' Joinder in Motions for Partial Stay of the Remedy Order Pending Appeal [Docket No. 417] are DENIED.
