Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00538/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00538-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability - Authorization to collect via civil action

---

1

16-cv-0538-AJB-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

The Hall Family Trust Dated June 8, 

2001, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-cv-0538-AJB-BGS

ORDER GRANTING THE HALL 

FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 8, 

2001, RUSSELL MERTON HALL, 

AND AMY HEDWIG HALL’S EX 

PARTE MOTION TO STAY 

LITIGATION PENDING APPEAL

(Doc. No. 213)

Presently before the Court is Cross-Plaintiffs the Hall Family Trust dated June 8, 

2001, Russell Morton Hall, and Amy Hedwig Hall’s (“the Halls”) ex parte motion to stay 

litigation pending appeal. (Doc. No. 213.) The Halls’ ex parte motion is unopposed. For 

the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the Halls’ ex parte motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The ultimate issue in this case concerned which party was liable for tax liens owed 

to the IRS. On November 12, 2019, the Court granted judgment to the Scott Defendants, 

holding that the Halls failed to show they suffered any damages independent of the amounts 

already paid to the IRS by their title insurance company, and real party in interest, 

Commonwealth. (Doc. No. 195.) The Scott Defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees 

on November 26, 2019, which is currently pending before the Court. (Doc. Nos. 202–03.)

Case 3:16-cv-00538-AJB-BGS Document 218 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

16-cv-0538-AJB-BGS

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

On December 4, 2019, the Halls filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. No. 

206.)

II. DISCUSSION

“If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the court may rule on the claim for 

fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may deny the motion without prejudice, 

directing . . . a new period for filing after the appeal has been resolved.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54,

Advisory Committee Note (1993). Courts consider four factors to determine whether to 

stay awarding attorneys’ fees and costs pending appeal: (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).

The Court finds that none of the foregoing factors weigh against staying this action 

pending resolution of the Halls’ appeal. First, the Halls’ appeal presents a serious legal 

question. Second, with the motion for attorneys’ fees pending, an award of attorneys’ fees 

would need to be vacated in the event the Halls prevail on their appeal. Third, a stay 

preserving the status quo will not substantially injure the Scott Defendants because their 

right to attorneys’ fees will be preserved pending the resolution of the appeal. And lastly, 

the public’s interest is furthered with a stay as it is the most efficient use of judicial 

resources.

In addition, the Court notes that the Halls’ ex parte motion is unopposed. Pursuant 

to this Court’s Chambers Rule III.2, “[e]x parte motions that are not opposed, will be 

considered unopposed and may be granted on that ground.” The Court here, exercising its 

discretion, will stay this action pending the resolution of the appeal.

III. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Halls’ ex parte motion to stay 

litigation pending appeal. (Doc. No. 213.) This action is hereby STAYED pending the 

Case 3:16-cv-00538-AJB-BGS Document 218 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

16-cv-0538-AJB-BGS

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

resolution of the Halls’ appeal. The hearing on the Scott Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ 

fees, (Doc. Nos. 202–03), currently set for February 20, 2020 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2020

Case 3:16-cv-00538-AJB-BGS Document 218 Filed 01/31/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3