del Bosque et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, No. 3:2014cv02305 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 6 Emergency MOTION for a Cease and Desist Order filed by Mario H. del Bosque, Sara S del Bosque. (Ordered by Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 9/5/2014) (Chief Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
del Bosque et al v. Wells Fargo Bank NA Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN RE MARIO H. DEL BOSQUE and SARA S. DEL BOSQUE, Debtors. § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2305-D (Bankr. Ct. No. 09-36522-HDH13) (Adv. No. 13-03102-HDH) APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ORDER Appellants’ September 4, 2014 emergency motion is denied. Appellants’ request for a cease and desist order is essentially a motion for an injunction pending appeal regarding their monthly escrow payment. “The traditional four-factor test for a stay pending appeal is typically used to analyze requests for a preliminary injunction. However, ‘where there is a serious legal question involved and the balance of the equities heavily favors a stay . . . the movant only needs to present a substantial case on the merits.’” In re Deepwater Horizon, 732 F.3d 326, 345 (5th Cir. 2013) (ellipsis in original) (footnote omitted) (quoting Weingarten Realty Investors v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2011)). The four factors are: (1) whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant has made a showing of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted, (3) whether the granting of the stay would substantially harm the other parties, and (4) whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest. Id. at 345 n.13 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Baylor Univ. Med. Ctr., 711 F.2d 38, 39 (5th Cir.1983)). Appellants have not made a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. And even if the court assumes that this appeal presents a serious legal question and that the balance of the Dockets.Justia.com equities heavily favors an injunction, appellants have not demonstrated a substantial case on the merits. SO ORDERED. September 5, 2014. _________________________________ SIDNEY A. FITZWATER CHIEF JUDGE -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
