(BK) Jerome v. Barnack ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONNIE JEROME et al., No. 2:19-cv-00073-MCE-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROBERT SCOTT BARNACK et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On September 30, 2021, the Court held an order to show cause hearing, found 18 Defendant Robert Scott Barnack (“Defendant”) in contempt of court, and ordered a 19 bench warrant for his arrest. See ECF No. 53. Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal in the 20 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the same day. ECF No. 54. Presently before the 21 Court is Defendant’s Request for Stay Pending Appeal, which asks the Court to recall 22 the arrest warrant while the appeal is heard before the Ninth Circuit. ECF No. 67. To 23 date, Defendant has not been arrested nor has he complied with previously issued court 24 orders. 25 Factors a court must consider when determining whether to issue a stay pending 26 appeal are “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to 27 succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; 28 (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the 1 || proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 2 | 776 (1987); see Metal Jeans, Inc. v. Metal Sport, Inc., Case No.: CV 15-08987-DDP 3 | (RAOx), 2019 WL 1427104, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (collecting cases and applying the 4 | Hilton test “in deciding whether to stay a sanctions order pending appeal.”). Here, 5 || Defendant has not made any showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his 6 | appeal or that he will be irreparably injured absent a stay. On the other hand, because 7 | Defendant has repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to produce responsive 8 | documents and appear for a debtor's examination, Plaintiffs will be forced to wait even 9 | more time while the appeal is resolved. Finally, “the public interest lies in the timely 10 || resolution of disputes, and the consistent enforcement of court orders.” Stargaze Mqmt., 11 | LLC v. George Smith Partners, Inc., Case No. CV-15-02755-R, 2015 WL 12656917, at 12 | “1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2015). Accordingly, Defendant's Request for Stay Pending Appeal, 13 || ECF No. 67, is DENIED. 14 IT |S SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: November 23, 2021 Mater LEK Whig { AX Xo - SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28