Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00525-JJF Document 22 Filed 05/14/2008 Page1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DENNIS LEE SMITH, :
Plaintiff, : Civil Action No. 07-525-JJF
v. :
PATRICIA A. MEYERS, MACK L. :
DAVIS, JR., STEVEN S. KREBS :
and BARBARA KREBS, :
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM ORDER
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Substantive Motion
For Stay (D.I. 18) requesting the Court to stay the enforcement
of the Memorandum Order issued by the Court on March 5, 2008H
dismissing this action%
WHEREAS, Plaintiff appears to suggest that the Court is
divested of jurisdiction during the pendency of his interlocutory
appeal, and therefore, lacked jurisdiction to dismiss his
underlying lawsuit;
WHEREAS, the filing of an interlocutory appeal from an order
denying a preliminary injunction does not prevent the Court from
l The Order was incorrectly dated March 5, 2007.
Although Plaintiff alleges that the Court “backdated" the Order
to suggest nefarious conduct by the Court, it is evident that the
mistake in the date was no more than a clerical error as
Plaintiff’s case was not even opened until August 30, 2007.
2 The Court has also received notice from the Third
Circuit (D.I. 21) that the Motion is to be treated as a Notice of
Appeal, in addition to a request for a stay.

Case 1:07—cv—00525-JJF Document 22 Filed 05/14/2008 Page2of2
proceeding with the underlying action which may include the
dismissal of the underlying claims; United States v. Price, 688
F.2d 204, 215 (3d Cir. 1982);
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has clearly stated that he does not wish
to have this action proceed in this Court as a civil lawsuit;
WHEREAS, in any event, the elements for a stay mirror those
required for granting injunctive relief, Hilton v. Braunskill,
481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (holding that the factors required for a
stay are “(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"), and the Court has already concluded in the
context of denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction,
that those factors are not met in this case;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has also not offered any new evidence
demonstrating that a stay is warranted;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice
of Substantive Motion For Stay (D.I. 18) is DENIED.
May W , 2008 krwni `A " 1.-_ L
_ D l·· @ DisTRicT jr

Case 1:07-cv-00525-JJF

Document 22

Filed 05/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00525-JJF

Document 22

Filed 05/14/2008

Page 2 of 2