At page 323 affirming the denial of a motion to stay where the movant “neither has demonstrated a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal, nor that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay · 6 citing cases
- Vasallo TV Grp., LLC v. Am.-CV Station Grp., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-23011 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2025).If the stay applicant makes just a “lesser showing” of a “substantial case on the merits,” we may grant a stay only if the “balance of equities” (as outlined in the three other factors) “weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.” Unite…
- Alston v. www.calculator.com, No. 1:20-cv-23013 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2020).Thus, “the movant need only present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved and show that the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the [injunction].” Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555,…
- Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo v. Michael Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2005).Thus, instead, “the movant need only present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved and show that the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the [preliminary injunction].” Ruiz v. Es…
- Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2002).(a probable'likelihood of success)
- Alban Osio v. Maduro Moros, No. 1:21-cv-20706 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2025).(affirming the denial of a motion to stay where the movant “neither has demonstrated a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal, nor that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay)
- Larios v. Cox, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2004).(describing a stay pending appeal as an “exceptional response)
v.
Evelyn B. HAMILTON, as Business Manager for RBM Leasing Co., Defendant-Appellant. in the Matter of John DOES, Etc., Defendants
Appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal of the district court’s April 2, 1992, order is denied. The court’s order enforces the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) sum[*323] mons requiring the appellant to appear, to testify, and to produce certain records, papers, and other data in her possession relevant to the determination of the tax liabilities of certain John Doe taxpayers. Appellant appeals that order contesting the court’s determination that she is barred from challenging the IRS’ compliance with the statutory provisions authorizing issuance of the summons, under 26 U.S.C. § 7609(f)(2) (1988), at the enforcement hearing to show cause for her noncompliance with the summons. Appellant now requests that we stay the district court’s April 2, 1992, order pending the outcome of her appeal.
Our standard of review in cases of this sort is well-settled. The grant of a motion to stay the trial court’s mandate is an exceptional response granted only on a showing of “a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal,” or upon a lesser showing of a “ ‘substantial case on the merits’ when ‘the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.’ ” Garcia-Mir v. Meese, 781 F.2d 1450, 1453 (11th Cir.1986) (quoting Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983)). Appellant neither has demonstrated a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal, see United States v. John Mutschler & Assoc., Inc., 734 F.2d 363 (8th Cir.1984), United States v. Samuels, Kramer and Co., 712 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.1983), Agricultural Asset Management Co., Inc. v. United States, 688 F.2d 144 (2d Cir.1982); but see United States v. Brigham Young University, 679 F.2d 1345 (10th Cir.1982), nor that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting the stay.
Accordingly, appellant’s motion for stay of the district court’s April 2, 1992, order is DENIED.