Case Name: MILLENNIUM DENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOTONA D.D., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-22
Citations: 427 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 2010-1428
Parties: MILLENNIUM DENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOTONA D.D., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 427
Pages: 893–893

Head Matter:
MILLENNIUM DENTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOTONA D.D., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2010-1428.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 22, 2011.
Philip J. Graves, Graves & Walton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
James S. Azadian, Enterprise Counsel Group, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
ON MOTION
GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
Millennium Dental Technologies, Inc. (Millennium) moves for a stay, pending disposition of this appeal, of the district court's September 30, 2010 Order and February 7, 2011 contempt proceedings. Fotona D.D. (Fotona) opposes. Millennium moves for leave to file a reply.
The power to stay an injunction pending appeal is part of a court's " 'traditional equipment for the administration of justice.' " Nken v. Holder, - U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 1757, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009) (citing Scripps-Howard, Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U.S. 4, 9-10, 62 S.Ct. 875, 86 L.Ed. 1229 (1942)). A stay, however, is not a matter of right but instead an exercise of judicial discretion. Nken, 129 S.Ct. at 1761. The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances, justify an exercise of that discretion based on consideration of four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (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. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987).
Based on the arguments in the motions papers, and without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a merits panel, we determine that Millennium has met its burden to obtain a stay of the district court's September 30, 2010 Order enforcing a settlement agreement between the parties.
Accordingly,
It Is Ordered That:
The motions are granted.
. This court previously issued an order stating "[t]he district court should hold in abeyance its contempt proceedings, pending this court's ruling on the motion to stay."