Braheem Hartley v. Delaware County et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Braheem Hartley’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, construing it as a motion for a stay pending appeal. The court held that Hartley had not shown a likelihood of success or irreparable harm, and that the remaining factors also weighed against delaying completion of a confirmed Pennsylvania tax sale.

Holdings

1. A post-judgment request to halt enforcement or completion of the judgment while an appeal is pending is properly treated as a motion for a stay pending appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62, rather than as a pre-judgment temporary restraining order under Rule 65.
2. Hartley was not entitled to a stay pending appeal because he failed to satisfy the two most critical factors: a strong likelihood of success on the merits and imminent irreparable injury absent a stay.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hartley's filing, styled as a motion for a temporary restraining order under Rule 65, should be treated as a motion for a stay pending appeal under Rule 62.
2. Whether the district court could grant a pre-judgment temporary restraining order after entering final judgment and while the case was on appeal.
3. Whether Hartley satisfied the four-factor standard for a stay pending appeal.

Disposition

other