Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02476/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02476-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

JORDANA BAUMAN,

Appellant,

Case No. 12-CV-2476-IEG (BLM)

Bankruptcy No. SD 11-11223-PB13

ORDER DENYING APPELLANT’S

EX PARTE MOTION FOR STAY

PENDING APPEAL

[Doc. No. 19.]

vs.

THOMAS H. BILLINGSLEA,

Appellee.

This case comes before the Court on an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court for

the Southern District of California. [See Doc. No. 1.] On February 14, 2013, Appellant filed an ex

parte motion for the imposition of a stay in the bankruptcy court preventing the proposed February

19, 2013 foreclosure sale of Appellant’s home. [Doc. No. 19.] For the reasons below, Appellant’s

motion is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

“When deciding whether to issue a discretionary stay pending a bankruptcy appeal, courts

use the following four factors: (1) Movant’s likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal; (2)

significant and/or irreparable harm that will come to Movant absent a stay; (3) harm to the adverse

party if a stay is granted; and (4) where the public interest lies.” In re North Plaza, LLC, 395 B.R.

113, 119 (S.D. Cal. 2008). Though these factors ostensibly mirror the standard for preliminary

- 1 - 12cv2476

Case 3:12-cv-02476-IEG-BLM Document 20 Filed 02/26/13 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

injunctions, the Ninth Circuit’s “sliding scale” preliminary injunction approach does not apply.1

Id. Rather, on the present motion, Appellant bears the burden of “show[ing] that it is more likely

than not they will succeed on the merits, whatever the possibility of irreparable injury.” Id. 

Appellant makes no attempt whatsoever to show any likelihood of success on the merits, 

[see Doc. No. 19], and thus Appellant fails to carry her burden on the present motion to stay. Id.

Moreover, even under the more lenient preliminary injunction standard, Appellant’s showing falls

short. “[I]n the absence of a likelihood of success on the merits, loss of property alone is not

sufficient for a TRO.” Jones v. H.S.B.C. (USA), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 574, at *4-5 (S.D. Cal. Jan.

4, 2012.) And “it is not in the public interest to delay a foreclosure and afford relief to those

deserving security on a defaulted loan.” Beutel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

121486, at *17 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2011) (citing Wilson v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 86611, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011)). Thus, even if losing one’s home qualifies as

irreparable harm and the balance of hardships tips toward Appellant, the utter lack of any showing

of success on the merits dooms the present motion to stay. See Johnson v. California State Bd. of

Accountancy, 72 F.3d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (“‘[E]ven if the balance of hardships tips

decidedly in favor of the moving party, it must be shown as an irreducible minimum that there is a

fair chance of success on the merits.’”).

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 26, 2013 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

1 “A ‘sliding scale’ approach, which often results in disproportionately weighting the

‘irreparable harm’ prong, is appropriate for preliminary injunctions because a court deals with the

dispute on first impressions, relies on a less-than-developed factual and legal record, and will

ultimately revisit the issue down the road. In contrast, where—as here—a court has taken extensive

evidence and briefing and issued a determination on the merits, an interest in finality arises.” Id. “This

finality would be rendered impotent if an enjoined party could always raise the spectre of irreparable

injury to trump the trial court’s order, no matter how unlikely an appellate victory on the merits.” Id. 

- 2 - 12cv2476

Case 3:12-cv-02476-IEG-BLM Document 20 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 2