Sisay v. Smith

Full title: DESALEGN SISAY, et al. PLAINTIFFS v. RICKY D. SMITH, et al. DEFENDANTS

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Dec 4, 2007

CASE NO. 1:07 CV 3128 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 4, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:07 CV 3128.

December 4, 2007

ORDER

PETER ECONOMUS, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Stay. (Dkt. #37).

Defendant seeks an order staying the Court's Order granting the Preliminary Injunction, based on the Sixth Circuit's decision inMichigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991). In determining whether to grant a stay, the court must consider the same four factors examined when evaluating a motion for preliminary injunction. Michigan Coalition, 945 F.2d at 153. These factors are: (1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will succeed on the merits of the appeal; (2) the amount of irreparable harm the moving party will sustain absent the stay; (3) harm to others if the stay is granted; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay. Id., citing Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v. Nuclear Regulatory Com., 812 F.2d 288, 290 (6th Cir. 1987). The factors are not prerequisites, but rather must be balanced together. Id. To justify a stay a movant does not always need to establish a high probability of success on the merits, instead the probability of success is proportional to the amount of irreparable injury the movant will suffer absent the stay. Id. The movant is required to show, at a minimum, that there are "serious questions going to the merits."Id. at 154. In order for a court to properly consider the four factors, the movant must address each factor, and provide specific facts and affidavits supporting any assertions of the existence of the factors. Id.

In the current matter, Defendants discussed the potential harm that denying the stay would cause to non-party Ace. However, during the teleconference held by the Court on December 4 2007, the Parties agreed to a resolution that will ameliorate the harm caused to Ace. Furthermore, the Court has already considered the above factors in its November 29, 2007 Order granting the Preliminary Injunction, and determined that the Defendants did not have a high likelihood of success on the merits and that the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury. While the Defendant merely has to show "serious questions going to the merits" in a motion to stay, Defendant has not met this burden.

Since the Defendant has not met is burden to succeed on a motion to stay, the motion is DENIED. (Dkt. # 37).

IT IS SO ORDERED.