UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GLOBAL TROPICAL IMPORTS AND 

EXPORTS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official 

capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Interior et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01341 (TNM)

MEMORANDUM ORDER

In 2015, Global Tropical Imports and Exports (“Global”) imported various reptiles from 

Tanzania. Federal regulations require valid permits to import these reptiles. Because one of 

Global’s permits was invalid, the U.S. Department of the Interior fined the company $15,000. 

Global challenged that fine. The Court found that the Department’s decision to impose the 

penalty complied with applicable laws and thus did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act. 

See Glob. Tropical Imports & Exports LLC v. Bernhardt, 366 F. Supp. 3d 110 (D.D.C. 2019). 

Global has appealed that decision. See Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 27. Now before the Court is 

the company’s Motion to Stay the Enforcement of a Final Judgment, ECF No. 29. Because 

Global has not met its burden of showing that a stay pending its appeal is warranted, the Court 

denies the Motion. 

I.

To begin with, Global’s request for a stay appears to stem from a dispute between the 

parties about whether the company must deposit the amount of the fine and any applicable 
2

interest into an escrow account. See ECF No. 29 at 1. But the Court’s decision did not require 

Global to pay the fine the Department imposed. See Glob. Tropical Imports, 366 F. Supp. 3d at 

117 n.7. It noted that while the Department asked the Court “to order Global to pay the civil 

penalty and any applicable interest,” the Court “decline[d] to do so.” Id. The Court explained 

that the Department’s regulations establish a procedure and certain requirements for collecting

such penalties, and that a Court order would circumvent those regulations. See id. (discussing 

50 C.F.R. § 11.17). Thus, it is not clear that staying enforcement of the Court’s judgment—

which concerned the validity of the fine and not the terms of its payment—will have any effect 

on the parties’ dispute.

In any event, Global has not shown that a stay pending appeal is warranted. Courts use a 

four-factor test to determine whether to issue such a stay: “(1) whether the stay applicant has 

made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will 

be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the 

other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 

556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). A stay “is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might 

otherwise result,” and the movant bears the burden of showing that issuing a stay is justified. Id.

II.

The first two factors of this test are “the most critical.” Id. For the first factor to weigh in 

its favor, Global must show a “substantial indication of probable success” on the merits. Va.

Petrol’m Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958) (emphasis 

added). It has not done so. In fact, Global’s motion offers no arguments suggesting that it is 

likely to prevail on appeal, or that the Court’s decision was wrong. See ECF No. 29. And as the 

Court explained, the law imposes strict liability on commercial importers of the reptiles in 
3

question for a failure to present a valid import permit. Glob. Tropical Imports, 366 F. Supp. 3d 

at 115. Global conceded that it is a commercial importer of these reptiles and that one of its

permits was unsigned. See id. The company was therefore strictly liable for this failure. Global 

has made no showing, much less a “strong showing,” that it will succeed on the merits of its 

claim. Nken, 556 U.S. at 434. This factor thus weighs against granting a stay.

Nor has the company shown that it will suffer irreparable harm. True, Global is a “small 

business owned and operated by one individual.” ECF No. 29 at 2. And small businesses can no 

doubt face difficulties without adequate access to cash funds for ongoing business operations. 

But irreparable harm requires showing more than an adverse economic effect on a business, even 

if that impact is substantial. See Wash. Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 

F.2d 841, 843 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (noting that the destruction of a business qualifies as an 

irreparable injury, but monetary losses that can be repaid do not). Global does not allege that 

placing funds into escrow will destroy its business, force it to enter bankruptcy, or cause some 

other sort of irreparable harm. And again, the Court’s decision did not order Global to pay the

fine. Thus, the Court finds that the second factor also weighs against granting a stay. 

So do the remaining factors, which “merge when the Government is the opposing party.”

Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. These factors balance the public’s interest against the movant’s interest, 

and the public interest is broadly defined. See Va. Petrol’m Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power 

Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Here, the public has a substantial interest in 

federal agencies fulfilling their statutory duties. See Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engin’rs, 

990 F. Supp. 2d 9, 43 (D.D.C. 2013). More, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act and 

related laws under which the Department imposed a fine on Global to safeguard the public’s 

interest in conserving vulnerable animal species. See 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1). Global fails to 
4

allege a countervailing private interest sufficient to offset the public’s interest in compliance with 

these laws. So the third and fourth factor weigh also against granting a stay.

III.

In short, Global has failed to meet its burden of showing that a stay pending its appeal is 

warranted. For these reasons, it is 

ORDERED that Global’s Motion for a Stay on Enforcement of a Judgment, ECF No. 29, 

is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 2, 2019 TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.