Brooks-Joseph v. City of Seattle

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 TERRI BROOKS-JOSEPH, Case No. 2:22-cv-01078-RSL 9

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 11 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL 12 CITY OF SEATTLE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s pro se “Motion for Stay Pending 15 Appeal” (Dkt. # 69). Having reviewed the motion, the opposition, and the record herein, the 16 Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion to stay as moot. 17 On October 5, 2023, this Court dismissed the case in an order granting defendant’s 18 motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 62; see also Dkt. # 64 (order denying reconsideration). 19 Accordingly, the Court entered judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff. Dkt. # 63. 20 On April 26, 2024, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and her appeal is still 21 pending. Dkt. # 68. Plaintiff now moves to stay this action pending appeal. 22 23 Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(A) allows a party to file for “a stay of the 24 judgment or order of a district court pending appeal.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. The primary 25 purpose of a stay pending appeal is to suspend the enforcement of the Court’s orders to prevent 26 irreparable harm while the appeal is pending. See e.g., Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 27 555 U.S. 7, 32 n.5 (2008). Given that the Court’s judgment does not order anything beyond the 28 dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, there is nothing for this Court to stay. In any event, plaintiff’s 1 claims of irreparable harm—i.e., financial and reputational harm—would not be remedied by a 2 stay. 3 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s “Motion for Stay Pending Appeal” (Dkt. # 69) is 4 DENIED as moot. 5 7 8 DATED this 22nd day of May, 2024. 9

10 A 11 Robert S. Lasnik 12 United States District Judge 13

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28