Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aptim Corp. v. McCall

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

November 8, 2017

APTIM CORP.
v.
DORSEY MCCALL

         SECTION “H”

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Stay Order and Judgment Pending Appeal (Doc. 32). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         The background facts of this matter were detailed in this Court's prior order, and knowledge of those facts is presumed.[1] On September 26, 2017, this Court entered judgment in this matter, holding that this Court would not abstain pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine and that Plaintiff had not waived its right to arbitration. The Court ordered the parties to arbitrate and stayed the related state court action (the “State Court Action”). Defendant now moves for an order staying that judgment pending its appeal.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         “The standards governing the issuance of stays are well established.”[2]Courts have long recognized four factors to consider when determining whether a stay should be granted: “(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.”[3] “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [judicial] discretion.”[4] Ultimately, “a stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result.”[5]

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         Defendant moves this Court for an order staying its judgment pending appeal. This Court must therefore consider the four factors outlined above.

         A. Likelihood of Success

         At the outset, the parties disagree on the standard the Court should apply to consider this first factor. The Fifth Circuit has said that “on motions for stay pending appeal the movant need not always show a ‘probability' of success on the merits; 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 stay.”[6] It has also stated, however, that when the issue is “merely a private contractual matter regarding whether arbitration is required, no substantial legal question is involved.”[7] Defendant has not convinced this Court that this matter has “far-reaching effects or public concerns” such that the more relaxed standard is appropriate.[8] Accordingly, Defendant must show a likelihood of success on the merits in order to satisfy this factor.

         Defendant contends that he is likely to succeed on his appeal and argues that this Court erred in each step of its analysis in declining to abstain, compelling arbitration, and staying the State Court Action. In arguing its position, Defendant sets forth two unique arguments: (1) the Court failed to distinguish Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc. v. VanArsdale, 676 F. App'x 388, 392 (6th Cir. 2017), a case upon which Defendant relied heavily, and (2) the Court failed to impute Shaw's actions to Aptim.

         First, VanArsdale is an opinion by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. This Court is not bound by rulings of the Sixth Circuit, rather, it must follow the precedent of the Fifth Circuit. This Court's decision not to abstain under the Colorado River doctrine is consistent with Fifth Circuit precedent as discussed in the Court's prior order.

         Second, Defendant argues that under Louisiana's assignment law, Aptim stepped into the shoes of Shaw and all defenses available against Shaw should have been available against Aptim. It argues that Shaw's actions in the State Court Action should therefore have been imputed to Aptim. Defendant, however, did not make any argument regarding Louisiana assignment law in its opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration. Indeed, this Court noted in its prior Order that, “Defendant has offered no argument why Shaw's actions should be imputed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.