Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03537-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD SLEZAK,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TCIF, et al.,

Defendants /

No. 03-3537 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ORDER DENYING NEGATIVE

CREDIT REPORTING AND

FORECLOSURES/SALES OF

PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY

By order filed August 23, 2006, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss,

construed as a motion for summary judgment, and, on August 23, 2006, the Clerk entered

judgment thereon. By order filed March 28, 2007, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration.

The Court is now in receipt of plaintiff’s “Motion for Order Denying Negative Credit

Reporting and Foreclosures/Sales of Plaintiff’s Property,” filed April 10, 2007, by which

plaintiff seeks an order prohibiting defendants from taking the action identified in the title of

the motion “for 30 days and/or an appeals [sic] is final whichever is later.” The Court

construes plaintiff’s motion as a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, pursuant to

Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. So construed, the motion is

hereby DENIED, for the reason plaintiff has failed to show any likelihood of success on the

merits of an appeal, let alone the existence of a serious question. See Lopez v. Heckler,

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 66 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

713 F. 2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding party seeking stay pending appeal must

show either “probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury” or

that “serious questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [his]

favor”). Moreover, plaintiff has failed to file proof of service of the motion on defendants,

and has not shown good cause exists to consider the motion on an ex parte basis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03537-MMC Document 66 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2