Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02984/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02984-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

LOWE’S HIW INC., ET AL.,

Defendants. /

No. 3:14-cv-02984-CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Lisa Washington’s motion to stay this Court’s order

of December 16, 2014 (dkt. 52) granting two motions to dismiss and denying leave to amend. 

See Mtn. for Relief Pending Appeal: Stay (dkt. 59). Washington moves for a stay pending

appeal on the grounds that “the appellant was denied the opportunity to present views on the

issues” and that “the defendants engaged in fraud, misrepresentation to the court on the facts

in the case [and o]ther misconduct prevented the appellant from fully and fairly presenting

her motion to the court.” 

Four factors guide a District Court’s decision whether to stay an order pending appeal:

(1) whether the movant made a strong showing that she is likely to succeed on appeal; (2)

whether the movant 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. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). 

Case 3:14-cv-02984-CRB Document 64 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Here, all factors weigh in favor of denying Washington’s motion to stay. As this

Court discussed in its Order Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal, Washington’s

issues on appeal are frivolous, contain no arguable basis in fact or law, and are procedurally

barred. Specifically with respect to the two grounds Washington now advances in favor of a

stay, the Court already determined that Washington was not entitled to oral argument under

Northern District of California Local Rule 7-1(b) and that Washington’s bare assertion that

defendants engaged in fraud and misrepresentation is neither grounded in fact nor appealable. 

See Order Revoking In Forma Pauperis Status on Appeal at 2–3. Washington has made no

showing that she will be injured absent a stay or that the public interest favors it, and the

Court sees none. 

Accordingly, Washington’s motion to stay is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-02984-CRB Document 64 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2