American Heritage Railways, Inc. v. Hirou
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- American Heritage Railways, Inc. v. Hirou (2026-06-26) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se defendant's motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal and a motion for reconsideration of the order granting the injunction. The court denied both motions, finding the defendant failed to meet the high standard for a stay and that the court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the appealed order.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Stay Denied“These factors strongly counsel against a stay. The motion is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the four-factor test for a stay pending appeal, citing Nken v. Holder. The court found the defendant failed to make a strong showing of likelihood of success, noting the case tracks a prior identical case against the defendant and that names are not subject to common law copyright. The court also found minimal irreparable harm and minimal public interest. This application of the law to the recited facts is legally sound. |
Motion for Reconsideration Denied“Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction and DENIES Defendant’s motion for reconsideration.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it loses jurisdiction over the issues appealed once a notice of appeal is filed. Citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co. and City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, the court determined it could not reconsider the very order the defendant appealed. This is a correct application of jurisdictional principles. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for a stay pending appeal and the jurisdictional rule regarding reconsideration after an appeal. It cites appropriate authorities for both rulings and applies them logically to the facts recited. The reasoning is complete and directly addresses the motions.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMERICAN HERITAGE RAILWAYS, Case No.: 3:24-cv-01802-CAB-JLB INC., et al., 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiffs, 13 STAY & MOTION FOR v. RECONSIDERATION 14 BRADLEY ARTHUR HIROU, et al., 15 [Doc. Nos. 22, 25] Defendants. 16 17 I. MOTION TO STAY 18 Defendant, proceeding pro se, has requested that this Court stay its ruling denying 19 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction pending 20 Defendant’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit. [Doc. No. 20.] A stay pending appeal is an 21 “extraordinary” remedy. Citizens for Resp. & Ethics in Washington v. Fed. Election 22 Comm’n, 904 F.3d 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (per curiam). To obtain such exceptional 23 relief, the stay applicant must (1) make a “strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on 24 the merits” of the appeal; (2) demonstrate that it will be “irreparably injured” before the 25 appeal concludes; (3) show that issuing a stay will not “substantially injure the other 26 parties” interested in the proceeding; and (4) establish that “the public interest” favors a 27 28 1 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 2 776 (1987)). 3 Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing here. For starters, as the Court’s prior 4 order stated, the outcome in this case tracks the outcome in a nearly identical case brought 5 against Defendant Hirou in 2008. Teeple v. Hirou, No. 08-CV-2281-JAH-CAB, 2009 WL 6 || 10671655 (S.D. Cal. 2009). And the likelihood of harm to Defendant is minimal where 7 ||Defendant provides no authority to disturb the finding that his name is not subject to 8 ||common law copyright protection. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez Ramirez, 291 F. 9 || Supp. 2d 266, 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The public interest in a dispute between these parties, 10 |/if any, is minimal. These factors strongly counsel against a stay. The motion is DENIED. 11 ||[Doc. No. 22.] 12 Il. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 Defendant also seeks reconsideration of this Court’s order granting Plaintiffs’ 14 request for preliminary injunction and denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 15 A district court loses jurisdiction following a notice of appeal to adjudicate those 16 aspects of the case involved in the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 17 ||459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982); see also City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica 18 || Bayvkeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding this divestiture of jurisdiction 19 || applies to interlocutory appeals as well). Defendant seeks reconsideration of the very order 20 issues he has appealed. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction and DENIES 21 Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. [Doc. No. 25.] 22 it. CONCLUSION 23 Defendant’s motion for reconsideration and motion to stay are DENIED. Defendant 24 only file additional motions with leave of the Court. The Clerk of Court is instructed 25 ||to STRIKE any additional motions that are filed without leave of the Court. 26 It is SO ORDERED. é 27 Dated: April 2, 2025 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 28 United States District Judge