Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06360/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06360-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY BAHAMA GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff, No. C 07-06360 EDL

v.

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS FOR

STAY OF JUDGMENT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

 RICHARD SEXTON

Defendant.

___________________________________/

On December 10, 2009, judgment was entered against pro se Defendant in this matter and

the case was terminated. Thereafter, Defendant appealed this Court’s decision and filed a “Request

for Stay of Judgment Re: Counterclaims” and a “Request for Stay of Judgment Re: Infringement.”

Because the case was terminated, Defendant did not submit a chambers copy of either request, and

Plaintiff did not oppose or otherwise respond to the requests, the Court was unaware of their

pendency until now.

The Ninth Circuit has treated the standard for determining whether a stay pending appeal

should be granted as the same as a preliminary injunction. See Golden Gate Restaurant Ass'n v.

City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008). Until recently, the Ninth

Circuit articulated “two interrelated tests” for whether to stay a judgment pending appeal as follows:

 “At one end of the continuum, the moving party is required to show both a probability of success on

the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “At the other end

of the continuum, the moving party must demonstrate that serious legal questions are raised and that

Case 3:07-cv-06360-EDL Document 91 Filed 08/02/10 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

the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor.” Id. at 1116 (inner citations omitted). These tests

“represent two points on a sliding scale” where “the required degree of irreparable harm increases as

the probability of success decreases.” Id. 

However, the Supreme Court has recently overturned a portion of this standard, and required

a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction to show “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is

likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips

in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council,

Inc., 129 S.Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted). Winter overturned a Ninth Circuit case where

the injunction had been issued based solely on a “possibility” of irreparable harm, and the Ninth

Circuit has recently clarified that cases suggesting this lesser “possibility” standard for irreparable

harm are no longer good law. See Am. Trucking Assoc., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d

1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009). However, following Winter, the Ninth Circuit has confirmed that the

“‘serious questions’ version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable.” See

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, – F.3d – , 2010 WL 2926463, *7 (9th Cir. July 28, 2010). 

“[A] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the [movant’s] favor,” so

long as the other Winter factors, including likelihood of irreparable harm, are also satisfied. Id.

Neither test is satisfied here, because Defendant’s requests simply ask for a stay without

explanation, and do not address any of the standards stated above. Therefore, Defendant’s requests

for a stay of judgment are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Defendant re-files his requests, he

shall address the appropriate standards in his moving papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010

________________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06360-EDL Document 91 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2