From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Underwood v. Selent (In re Underwood)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jul 23, 2015
Case No. 06-55754 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Jul. 23, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 06-55754 Adv. Pro. No. 14-4966

07-23-2015

In re: GLENN RICHARD UNDERWOOD, Debtor. GLENN RICHARD UNDERWOOD, pro se, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA SELENT, pro se, et al., Defendants.


Chapter 11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL

This adversary proceeding is before the Court on Plaintiff Glenn Underwood's motion for a stay pending appeal, filed July 15, 2015 (Docket # 187, the "Motion"). The Court will deny the Motion because none of the normal stay-pending appeal factors favor a stay. Most important, the Court concludes that Plaintiff Underwood's likelihood of prevailing on appeal is extremely low — a virtually zero likelihood. And the Court's conclusion about this first stay factor is alone fatal to Plaintiff's Motion, under the Sixth Circuit's decision in Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 154 (6th Cir.1991)(holding that "even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the [opposing parties] if a stay is granted, he is still required to show at a minimum 'serious questions going to the merits'"). See Michigan First Credit Union v. Smith, (In re Smith), 501 B.R. 332, 336 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2013).

For these reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion (Docket # 187) is denied. Signed on July 23, 2015

/s/ Thomas J. Tucker

Thomas J. Tucker

United States Bankruptcy Judge

See Michigan First Credit Union v. Smith, (In re Smith), 501 B.R. 332, 335 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2013)(quoting Michigan Coalition of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153-54 (6th Cir.1991))(explaining that the factors that a court must consider in determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal are "'(1) the likelihood that the party seeking the stay will prevail on the merits of the appeal; (2) the likelihood that the moving party will be irreparably harmed absent a stay; (3) the prospect that others will be harmed if the court grants the stay; and (4) the public interest in granting the stay'"); In re McInerney, 490 B.R. 540, 544 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2013)(same).


Summaries of

Underwood v. Selent (In re Underwood)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Jul 23, 2015
Case No. 06-55754 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Jul. 23, 2015)
Case details for

Underwood v. Selent (In re Underwood)

Case Details

Full title:In re: GLENN RICHARD UNDERWOOD, Debtor. GLENN RICHARD UNDERWOOD, pro se…

Court:UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Jul 23, 2015

Citations

Case No. 06-55754 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Jul. 23, 2015)

Citing Cases

Underwood v. Selent (In re Underwood)

The bankruptcy court denied the request. Order, In re Underwood, Case No. 06-55754, (Bankr. E.D. Mich. July…