Opinion
Civil Action 23-23419 (RK) (TJB)
10-17-2024
BLUE FOUNDRY BANK (f/k/a Boiling Springs Savings Bank), Plaintiff, v. CHRYSSOULA ARSENIS, SPYRIDON ARSENIS, GEORGE ARSENIS, THOMAS S. PETERS, ANDREW E. HALL & SON, INC., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA, and STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM ORDER
ROBERT KIRSCH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER conies before the Court upon a Motion to Stay the Enforcement of Attorney's Fees Pending Appeal, (“MTS,” ECF No. 38), filed by pro se Defendants Chryssoula Arsenis and George Arsenis (the “Arsenis Defendants”). Blue Foundry Bank f/k/a Boiling Springs Savings Bank (“Plaintiff') filed a Memorandum in Opposition, (“Opp.,” ECF No. 39), and the Arsenis Defendants replied, (“Rep.,” ECF No. 40). The Court has considered the parties' submissions and resolves the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. For the reasons set forth below, and for good cause shown, IT IS on the 17th day of October, 2024, ORDERED as follows:
It is unclear if the motion is also brought by Spyridon Arsenis, though it is ultimately of no matter to the disposition of the motion.
1. The Arsenis Defendants' Motion to Stay is DENIED. On August 30, 2024, this Court entered an Order awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees and costs totaling $33,890.79 pursuant 2 to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (ECF No. 37.) To date, the Arsenis Defendants have not filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's August 30, 2024 Order.While Plaintiff raised this issue in its Opposition, (see Opp.at 5), the Arsenis Defendants failed to address this glaring issue in their own briefing. Therefore, because no appeal is pending, "there was no basis in law for Plaintiff to file a motion to stay." Lane v. New Jersey, No.16-8948, 2019 WL 7184555, at *2 (D.N.J. Dec. 26, 2019). Consequently, the Court denies the Arsenis Defendants' Motion to Stay. See, e.g., Adesanya v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 13-5564, 2017 WL 2443060, at *12 (D.N.J. June 5, 2017) (" Since no appeal is pending, the motion to stay this matter is moot and will be dismissed accordingly"); Lusick v. Kullar, No.05-1274, 2007 WL 1490696, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 21, 2007) ("[S]ince there is no appeal pending, Plaintiffs request for relief ...will be denied"). 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE the Motion pending at ECF No. 38.