From Adams Offshore, Ltd. v. Con-Dive, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117337 (S.D.Ala. Nov. 3, 2010):
I. Stay Pending Appeal. [Intervening Plaintiff] Blake first moves for a stay pending appeal. *** Such stays are governed by Rule 62. "In the case of a non-money judgment, whether a stay is warranted under Rule 62(d) depends upon: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." Venus Lines Agency v. CVG Industria Venelozana de Aluminio, C.A., 210 F.3d 1309, 1313 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S. Ct. 2113, 95 L. Ed. 2d 724 (1987) (same test applies under Rule 62(c)). *** The burden as to each of these factors is on [the movant].... Drummond v. Fulton County, 532 F.2d 1001, 1002 (5th Cir. 1976).
[Footnote 9] Blake does note in passing that the Court cited no authority in support of its conclusion that the plaintiffs acted inequitably in attaching the Equipment, and it concludes that this is apparently a case of first impression. *** The question, however, is not whether the issue presented is interesting or novel but whether the Court's resolution of the issue is likely to be undone on appeal. Blake offers nothing to suggest that it will be.
Share this article: