SWAIN
v.
JUNIOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendants' motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal must be denied because they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.
Defendants sought an emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction previously entered by the court. The court applied a four-factor test to determ…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preliminary Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
/ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction entered on April 29, 2020. (DE 102).
This Court must consider four factors when deciding whether to stay an injunction pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay, (3) whether the issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding, and (4) where the public interest lies.” Democratic Exec. Committee of Fla. v. Lee, 915 F. 3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). “Considering that this test is so similar to that applied when considering a preliminary injunction, courts rarely stay a preliminary injunction pending appeal.” Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner, 2016 WL 6090943, at *9 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016) (concluding that no “exceptional circumstances” justified staying preliminary injunction).
Because Defendants’ motion fails to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits or that they will be irreparably harmed absent a stay,1 there is no basis for the Court to stay the preliminary injunction order. And, for the reasons stated in the preliminary injunction order
Thus, Defendants cannot show they will be harmed by the narrow preliminary injunction order, which significantly mirrors the measures Defendants maintain are already in place at Metro West. See Robinson v. Harris, No. 20-11401-B (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2020) (“The chief function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the controversy can be fully and fairly adjudicated.”) (quoting Ne. Fla. Ch. of Ass’n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F. 2d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990)). (DE 100), the Court finds that Plaintiffs will be substantially injured absent a preliminary injunction and that the preliminary injunction serves the public interest.
Accordingly, based upon the Court’s review of the emergency motion, Plaintiffs’ response, the entire record, and relevant case law, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the motion (DE 102) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, this 30th day of April, 2020.
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jacobsen v. Fla. Sec'y of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020)…a Madera v. Detzner, 325 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1275 (N.D. Fla. 2018) (Walker, C.J.) (rejecting the Secretary's argument that “he has no relevant power over the county supervisors of elections"); Fla. Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 4:16-cv-607- MW-CAS, 2016 WL 6090943, at *4–5 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016) (Walker, J.) (rejecting the Secretary's arguments that “he cannot direct the [county] canvassing boards to comply with any order issued by this Court" and that “he does not possess the power to issue orders [to cou…
-
Democratic Executive Comm. OF Fla. v. Laurel M. LEE, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019)…e ballot is rejected. Id. For a period, Florida did not afford voters whose ballots were rejected due to signature mismatch the opportunity to cure their votes by proving their identities. See Fla. Democratic Party v. Detzner, No. 4:16CV607-MW/CAS, 2016 WL 6090943, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016). But the signature-match scheme calls on officials who are not required to receive formal training to judge the similarities of signatures, and everyday factors "such as body position, writing surface, and noise" all…1 / 5
-
Swain v. Junior, 2016 WL 6090943 (S.D. Fla. 2020)…en v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)). “Considering that this test is so similar to that applied when considering a preliminary injunction, courts rarely stay a preliminary injunction pending appeal.” Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner, 2016 WL 6090943, at *9 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 16, 2016) (concluding that no “exceptional circumstances” justified staying preliminary injunction). Because Defendants’ motion fails to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed on the merits or that they will be irrepara…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ne. Fla. Chapter OF The Ass'n OF Gen. Contractors OF Am. v. City OF Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990)
- Democratic Executive Comm. OF Fla. v. Laurel M. LEE, 915 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2019)
- Swain v. Junior, 2016 WL 6090943 (S.D. Fla. 2020)