United States v. Beresford

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. C21-5345-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 STEVEN M. BERESFORD, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay an order pending appeal (Dkt. No. 106). Having thoroughly considered the motions and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18 The facts of this suit have been detailed previously and the Court will not repeat them here. (See Dkt. No. 93 at 2–7.) The Court adopted a Report and Recommendation granting summary judgment to Plaintiff on all claims. (See Dkt. No. 98 at 1.) Subsequently, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for decree of foreclosure. (Dkt. No. 105 at 1.) Defendants filed a notice of appeal and a motion to stay the foreclosure order pending the resolution of that appeal.

23 (Dkt. Nos. 107, 106.)

24 Defendants move to stay this case pending their appeal of the Court’s foreclosure decree.

25 (Dkt. No. 106 at 1.) Their motion simply states, “[i]n accordance with FRAP 8(a)(1)(A), Defendants hereby move for a stay of the Order granting a Decree of Foreclosure pending the appeal.” (Id.) Defendants do not otherwise provide any substantive basis for the Court to stay this case pending the outcome of their appeal. See Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 397 (10th Cir. 1977) (reciting elements courts examine to determine whether stay order pending an appeal is warranted). Furthermore, on September 4, 2024, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Defendants’ appeal of the order for lack of jurisdiction, mooting the instant motion. (See Dkt. No. 111 at 2) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291). Therefore, Defendants’ motion to stay (Dkt. No. 106) is DENIED.

8 DATED this 18th day of September 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE