Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Mcnamee Hosea x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Insurance | Maryland
Alternative Service
MOTION for Alternative Service and to Extend Time to Serve Defendant Stacy Davis by Scottsdale Insurance Company (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Hayes, Colleen)
Civil Rights: Other | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion to Stay
MINUTE ORDER. The court is in receipt of Defendant Pennington's 75 emergency motion to stay implementation of the cancellation of instrument No. 2026051028 pending interlocutory appeal and for a temporary administrative stay.
A stay pending appeal is "extraordinary relief." Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Wash. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 904 F.3d 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2018). A court deciding a motion for stay pending appeal must consider four factors: "(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [she] 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." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). The first two factors are "the most critical." Id. Here, Defendant Pennington's argument that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her appeal is unpersuasive. As the court concluded, immediate cancellation of the May 2026 lis pendens notice is warranted in light of Plaintiff's showing of likelihood of success, harm, equities, and public interest. See ECF No. 60 at 17-18; ECF No. 69 at 1-2. Defendant Pennington also asserts that she will be irreparably harmed absent a stay by removing statutory notice to third parties, but as the court has explained, it is Defendant Pennington's repeated filing of lis pendens notices that has led to irreparable harm. See ECF No. 60 at 15; ECF No. 69 at 3. Neither of the other factors supports a stay. Accordingly, Defendant Pennington's motion is denied. Signed by Judge Amir H. Ali on 09/29/2026. (lcaha3)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.