United States v. The Hall Family Trust Dated June 8, 2001 ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 United States of America, Case No.: 16-cv-0538-AJB-BGS Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING THE HALL v. FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 8, 13 2001, RUSSELL MERTON HALL, The Hall Family Trust Dated June 8, 14 AND AMY HEDWIG HALL’S EX 2001, et al., PARTE MOTION TO STAY 15 Defendants. LITIGATION PENDING APPEAL 16 (Doc. No. 213) 17 Presently before the Court is Cross-Plaintiffs the Hall Family Trust dated June 8, 18 2001, Russell Morton Hall, and Amy Hedwig Hall’s (“the Halls”) ex parte motion to stay 19 litigation pending appeal. (Doc. No. 213.) The Halls’ ex parte motion is unopposed. For 20 the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Halls’ ex parte motion. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 The ultimate issue in this case concerned which party was liable for tax liens owed 23 to the IRS. On November 12, 2019, the Court granted judgment to the Scott Defendants, 24 holding that the Halls failed to show they suffered any damages independent of the amounts 25 already paid to the IRS by their title insurance company, and real party in interest, 26 Commonwealth. (Doc. No. 195.) The Scott Defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees 27 on November 26, 2019, which is currently pending before the Court. (Doc. Nos. 202–03.) 28 1 On December 4, 2019, the Halls filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 2 206.) 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 “If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for 5 fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, 6 directing . . . a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, 7 Advisory Committee Note (1993). Courts consider four factors to determine whether to 8 stay awarding attorneys’ fees and costs pending appeal: (1) “whether the stay applicant has 9 made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits;” (2) “whether the applicant 10 will be irreparably injured absent a stay;” (3) “whether issuance of the stay will 11 substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding;” and (4) “where the 12 public interest lies.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). 13 The Court finds that none of the foregoing factors weigh against staying this action 14 pending resolution of the Halls’ appeal. First, the Halls’ appeal presents a serious legal 15 question. Second, with the motion for attorneys’ fees pending, an award of attorneys’ fees 16 would need to be vacated in the event the Halls prevail on their appeal. Third, a stay 17 preserving the status quo will not substantially injure the Scott Defendants because their 18 right to attorneys’ fees will be preserved pending the resolution of the appeal. And lastly, 19 the public’s interest is furthered with a stay as it is the most efficient use of judicial 20 resources. 21 In addition, the Court notes that the Halls’ ex parte motion is unopposed. Pursuant 22 to this Court’s Chambers Rule III.2, “[e]x parte motions that are not opposed, will be 23 considered unopposed and may be granted on that ground.” The Court here, exercising its 24 discretion, will stay this action pending the resolution of the appeal. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Halls’ ex parte motion to stay 27 litigation pending appeal. (Doc. No. 213.) This action is hereby STAYED pending the 28 1 || resolution of the Halls’ appeal. The hearing on the Scott Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ 2 (Doc. Nos. 202-03), currently set for February 20, 2020 is hereby VACATED. 3 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 31, 2020 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28