Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03557/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03557-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CSX Transportation, Inc.
Appellant
Robert McBride
Appellee

Document Text:

This opinion was released initially in typescript form. 

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 08-3557

ROBERT MCBRIDE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:06-cv-01017-JPG-CJP—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.

ON MOTION TO STAY THE MANDATE

JUNE 24, 2010

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge (in chambers). CSX Transportation

has filed a motion to stay the mandate pending the

filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the motion

must be denied.

Case: 08-3557 Document: 47 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pages: 4
2 No. 08-3557

On March 16, 2010, this court affirmed the judgment of

the district court. See McBride v. CSX Transp., Inc., 598 F.3d

388 (7th Cir. 2010). On June 3, we denied CSX’s petition

for rehearing en banc. On June 8, CSX filed this motion

for a stay of this court’s mandate. Therefore, the issuance

of the mandate, originally scheduled to issue on June 10,

has been postponed temporarily while we considered

the motion and the response of Mr. McBride.

The standard governing the issuance of such a stay

is well-established. We may stay our mandate pending

the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari if the applicant demonstrates “that the certiorari petition would

present a substantial question and that there is good

cause for a stay.” Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A). The inquiry

contemplated by this rule focuses on “whether the applicant has a reasonable probability of succeeding on the

merits and whether the applicant will suffer irreparable

injury.” United States ex rel. Chandler v. Cook County, 282

F.3d 448, 450 (7th Cir. 2002) (Ripple, J., in chambers). To

demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on

the merits, the applicant must show a reasonable probability that four Justices will vote to grant certiorari and

a reasonable possibility that five Justices will vote to

reverse the judgment of this court. Id. See also Indiana

Prot. & Advocacy Servs. v. Indiana Family & Soc. Servs.

Admin., 2010 WL 2115386, *1 (7th Cir. May 26, 2010)

(Hamilton, J., in chambers) (quoting California v. Am.

Stores Co., 492 U.S. 1301, 1306-07 (1989) (O’Connor, J., in

chambers)).

CSX argues that it meets each of the factors necessary

for this court to stay its mandate. It first argues that

Case: 08-3557 Document: 47 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pages: 4
No. 08-3557 3

there is a reasonable probability that four Justices will

vote to grant certiorari in this case. CSX points to

Supreme Court Rule 10(a), which says that the Court

will consider granting certiorari when “a United States

court of appeals . . . has decided an important federal

question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a

state court of last resort.”

CSX has not carried its burden of establishing the

requisite probability of success on the merits. Because

several state courts have taken a different view, it

has established that its case falls within the general category of cases identified by the Supreme Court’s rule as

deserving consideration for a grant of a writ of certiorari.

It has not demonstrated, however, the requisite probability that certiorari will be granted or the requisite

possibility that the judgment of this court will be

reversed if certiorari should be granted. As the opinion

of this court notes, our decision is in conformity with the

law of this and every other federal circuit that has addressed the issue. Only a few state courts have adopted

a contrary position. Under these circumstances, absent a

clear indication from the Supreme Court that it desires

to re-debate an issue it so recently has confronted, our

proper course is to take the law as settled and require

a party maintaining that the Supreme Court wishes to

reconsider the matter to seek redress from the Supreme

Court both on the merits of its contention and with

respect to a stay of our mandate.

CSX also submits that it will suffer irreparable harm if

it is required to pay the judgment pending Supreme

Case: 08-3557 Document: 47 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pages: 4
4 No. 08-3557

Court review because, if the Supreme Court reverses, it

is unlikely to be able to recover the money from

Mr. McBride. It relies on two Supreme Court chambers

opinions: Ledbetter v. Baldwin, 479 U.S. 1309, 1310 (1986)

(Powell, J., in chambers) and Heckler v. Turner, 468 U.S.

1305, 1308 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). In these

cases, the authoring Justices found irreparable injury

because it was unlikely that the applicant for the stay

would be able to recover funds if the judgment were

reversed. Notably, both cases involved the distribution

of AFDC payments by the government to a large

number of individuals who were unlikely to be able to

repay any erroneous payments if the judgment were

reversed. By contrast, here CSX does not explain, with

any specificity, why it is unlikely that Mr. McBride

will be able to repay the judgment if it is reversed.

In sum, it cannot be said, on the basis of the information presented in this motion, that CSX has met the significant burden placed on a litigant seeking a stay

pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

MOTION DENIED

7-1-10

Case: 08-3557 Document: 47 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pages: 4