Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01380/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-01380-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

1

 Greiner's attorneys apparently have not acted on two notices from the clerk instructing them to

register in the court's electronic filing program. See docket nos. 117, 145. Compliance is required

by General Order 45, which deals with electronic filing.

2

 The factors relevant to a district court's decision to stay an order pending an appeal are similar to

those for granting a preliminary injunction. See Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Blinder, Robinson &

Co., Inc., 962 F.2d 960, 968 (10th Cir. 1992); Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm'n v. Holiday Tours,

Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 842 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1977); see also Lopez v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, (9th Cir.

1983) (standard applied by Ninth Circuit itself to evaluate requests for "stays pending appeal is

similar to that employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction");

United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 711 F.2d 38, 39 (5th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (similar). To

be granted a stay, a movant must show "(1) its strong position on the merits of the appeal; (2)

irreparable injury if the stay was denied; (3) that a stay would not substantially harm other parties to

the litigation; and (4) that the public interests favor a stay." Securities Investor, 962 F.2d at 968.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY—No. C-03-01380 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 6/26/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FAMILY MORTGAGE CORPORATION

NO. 15,

Plaintiff,

v.

PERRY L. GREINER,

Defendant.

No. C-03-01380 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY

[Re Docket No. 154]

On June 5, 2006, defendant Perry L. Greiner moved1

 this court to stay enforcement of its

order enforcing the settlement agreement between the parties. The motion is denied.

Equitable principles do not support a stay here.2

 While Greiner may suffer harm if this court

Case 5:03-cv-01380-RMW Document 159 Filed 06/26/06 Page 1 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY—No. C-03-01380 RMW

JAH 2

has erroneously enforced the settlement agreement, the court believes Greiner's appeal to be without

merit. No public interest favors Greiner. Most importantly, however, Greiner has consistently

pursued a strategy of delay with respect to the loan at issue here, seeking neither to cure his default

on the loan nor make good on his obligations to relinquish control of the sale of the property. In

light of this, Family Mortgage and Eastern Saving Bank should be allowed to proceed with the

remedy given them by the court.

Greiner's motion for a stay is denied.

DATED: 6/26/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-01380-RMW Document 159 Filed 06/26/06 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY—No. C-03-01380 RMW

JAH 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Mark V. Isola misola@rehonroberts.com 

Peter M. Rehon prehon@rehonroberts.com 

Tiffany L. Goodman 

Tyler J. Olson tolson@rehonroberts.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered

for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

A copy will also be mailed to:

Stanford H. Atwood, Jr.; Eric S. Haiman 

Atwood Haiman & Westerberg 

18805 Cox Ave., Suite 200 

Saratoga, CA 95070-4183 

Dated: 6/26/06 /s/ JH 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:03-cv-01380-RMW Document 159 Filed 06/26/06 Page 3 of 3