Anthony, Voncelle v. Abbott, Richard
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN VONCELLE ANTHONY and VONCELLE ANTHONY for and on behalf of KAMARI LEWIS, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 1999-78 v. RICHARD ABBOTT and MAZDA CORPORATION, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Bruce P. Bennett, Esq.’s Motion to stay (ECF 356) the Court’s July 9, 2012 Opinion and Order (ECF 352) pending appeal. In deciding whether to stay proceedings pending an appeal, the Court must consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”1 First, although Attorney Bennett disagrees with the result embodied in the Opinion and Order, he does not make a “strong showing” that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his objections, or that the decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_99-cv-00078/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_99-cv-00078-4.pdf
SHA-256 4eb7c30abcba1d6b2195c6f129dc800a68475e5d1a1c0ba41e162304f6eb20fa
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-4eb7c30abcba
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN VONCELLE ANTHONY and VONCELLE ANTHONY for and on behalf of KAMARI LEWIS, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 1999-78 v. RICHARD ABBOTT and MAZDA CORPORATION, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Bruce P. Bennett, Esq.’s Motion to stay (ECF 356) the Court’s July 9, 2012 Opinion and Order (ECF 352) pending appeal. In deciding whether to stay proceedings pending an appeal, the Court must consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will suffer irreparable injury absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”1 First, although Attorney Bennett disagrees with the result embodied in the Opinion and Order, he does not make a “strong showing” that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his objections, or that the decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Moreover, although the instant Opinion and Order dealt with the calculation of the attorneys’ fees for which he would be responsible pursuant to an order of sanctions entered in 2007, Attorney Bennett seems principally 1 See, e.g., Southern New England Telephone Company v. Global NAPs, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79729, *3-4 (D.V.I. Oct. 26, 2007)(citations omitted). Case: 3:99-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 359 Filed: 08/29/12 Page 1 of 2 Anthony, et al. v. Abbott, et al. Civil No. 1999-78 to be objecting to and appealing the contents of the 2007 order itself, the time for appeal of which may have lapsed long ago. Second, he makes no argument regarding, let alone a showing of, irreparable harm absent a stay. Third, the Court considers whether other parties may be harmed by a stay. The Court perceives no substantial harm would devolve to other parties if a stay were granted; however, given the long pendency of this particular issue, the Court deems that moving forward, as opposed to once again stopping proceedings, is in all parties’ interest. Finally, the public interest plainly also lies in favor of resolving this case once and for all. Accordingly, Attorney Bennett has not made the requisite showing necessary to merit a stay of the Opinion and Order. As a result, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to stay is DENIED. S\________________________________ RUTH MILLER United States Magistrate Judge Case: 3:99-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 359 Filed: 08/29/12 Page 2 of 2