Rodriquez v. 32nd Legislature of the Virgin Islands et al
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JANELLE K. SARAUW, BRIGITTE BERRY, Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN A. RODRIQUEZ, CAROLINE F. FAWKES, VIRGIN ISLANDS JOINT BOARD OF ELECTIONS, BOARD OF ELECTIONS ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2017-5 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KEVIN A. RODRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. 32ND LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, SENATOR MYRON JACKSON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2017-3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Edward L. Barry Christiansted, U.S.V.I. For Janelle K. Sarauw and Brigitte Berry, Francis E. Jackson, JR Law Offices of Francis Jackson St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Kevin A. Rodriquez, Case: 3:17-cv-00003-CVG-RM Document #: 35 Filed: 03/22/17 Page 1 of 4 Sarauw v. Rodriquez; Rodriquez v. 32nd Legislature of the V.I. Civil No. 2017-5; Civil No. 2017-3 Order Claude E. Walker, AG Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, AAG Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Pamela R. Tepper, AAG V.I. Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Caroline F. Fawkes, Julita K. De Leon St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. …
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_17-cv-00003/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_17-cv-00003-3.pdf
SHA-256 4eff4f5ead44e5227cd00c5285063c9be861a160f5890e4e3b6a92eba21e1d50
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-4eff4f5ead44
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN JANELLE K. SARAUW, BRIGITTE BERRY, Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN A. RODRIQUEZ, CAROLINE F. FAWKES, VIRGIN ISLANDS JOINT BOARD OF ELECTIONS, BOARD OF ELECTIONS ST. THOMAS & ST. JOHN, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2017-5 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) KEVIN A. RODRIQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. 32ND LEGISLATURE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, SENATOR MYRON JACKSON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2017-3 ) ) ) ) ) ) ATTORNEYS: Edward L. Barry Christiansted, U.S.V.I. For Janelle K. Sarauw and Brigitte Berry, Francis E. Jackson, JR Law Offices of Francis Jackson St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Kevin A. Rodriquez, Case: 3:17-cv-00003-CVG-RM Document #: 35 Filed: 03/22/17 Page 1 of 4 Sarauw v. Rodriquez; Rodriquez v. 32nd Legislature of the V.I. Civil No. 2017-5; Civil No. 2017-3 Order Claude E. Walker, AG Ariel Marie Smith-Francois, AAG Carol Thomas-Jacobs, AAG Pamela R. Tepper, AAG V.I. Department of Justice St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Caroline F. Fawkes, Julita K. De Leon St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Virgin Islands Joint Board of Elections and Board of Elections St. Thomas & St. John, Kye Walker Christiansted, U.S.V.I. For 32nd Legislature of the Virgin Islands and Senator Myron Jackson. ORDER GÓMEZ, J. Before the Court is the motion of Kevin A. Rodriquez (“Rodriquez”) for an order enjoining the Board of Elections, St. Thomas-St. John from holding a special election (the “Rule 62(c) motion”). Rodriquez also moves for an expedited ruling on the Rule 62(c) motion. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8 provides that litigants “must ordinarily move first in the district court for . . . an order suspending, modifying, restoring, or granting an injunction while an appeal is pending.” Fed. R. App. P. Case: 3:17-cv-00003-CVG-RM Document #: 35 Filed: 03/22/17 Page 2 of 4 Sarauw v. Rodriquez; Rodriquez v. 32nd Legislature of the V.I. Civil No. 2017-5; Civil No. 2017-3 Order 8(a)(1)(C). Motions for injunctions pending appeal are brought in a district court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 (“Rule 62”). See Vasile v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 205 F.3d 1327 (2d Cir. 2000) (“‘A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for . . .an order modifying an injunction while an appeal is pending.’ Rule 62(c) regulates the power of district courts to grant such relief.” (original alterations omitted) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1))). In relevant part, Rule 62 provides that, “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order or final judgment that grants, dissolves, or denies an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for bond or other terms that secure the opposing party's rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c). When considering Rule 62(c) motions, district courts consider four factors: (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 the 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) (“Different Rules of Procedure govern the power of district courts and courts of appeals to stay an order pending appeal. Under both Rules, however, the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are Case: 3:17-cv-00003-CVG-RM Document #: 35 Filed: 03/22/17 Page 3 of 4 Sarauw v. Rodriquez; Rodriquez v. 32nd Legislature of the V.I. Civil No. 2017-5; Civil No. 2017-3 Order generally the same.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 8(a))). The burden to satisfy those four factors lies with the moving party. See, e.g., Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009) (“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.”). Having considered those four factors, the Court finds that Rodriquez has failed to meet his burden. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that Kevin A. Rodriquez’s Rule 62(c) motion is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Kevin A. Rodriquez’s motion for an expedited ruling is MOOT. S\ Curtis V. Gómez District Judge Case: 3:17-cv-00003-CVG-RM Document #: 35 Filed: 03/22/17 Page 4 of 4