Opinion
No. 01 Civ. 9649 (JFK).
January 19, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Principal Defendants have moved for an ex parte stay of the January 4, 2006 judgment pending the Court's resolution of their Rule 59 motion. The motion does not cite Rule 62(b), but the Court presumes that this rule is the basis for the application. Yesterday, the Court issued an order declining to consider the motion ex parte and directing the plaintiff and nominal defendant to apprise Chambers of their respective positions by 3:00 P.M. today. They have done so. The nominal defendant does not object to a stay; the plaintiff opposes it.
In determining whether Principal Defendants are entitled to a discretionary stay, the Court considers "(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 a 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). Principal Defendants have not made the requisite showings. They argue that "[g]reat harm" will befall them absent the stay (Motion at 2), and that the Court has the inherent power to issue the stay (Br. at 1). These statements, without more, are insufficient. Without even addressing the other factors, the Court finds that Principal Defendants have not made a "strong showing" that the Rule 59 motion is "likely" to succeed on the merits.
The motion for a discretionary stay pending resolution of the Rule 59 motion is denied. If the plaintiff or principal defendant wish to make submissions with respect to the Rule 59 motion, they shall do so by February 3, 2006. Principal Defendants may reply, if they wish, by February 10, 2006.
SO ORDERED.