1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE RAINA M. CARDONI, Case No. 22-cv-01616-JD

8 Debtor.

ORDER RE STAY

9

10 11

12 13 The request for a stay pending appeal by appellant Ruby Creek Ranch, LLC (Ruby Creek) 14 is denied. Dkt. No. 6. 15 A stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion, and the propriety of its issue is dependent upon 16 the circumstances of the particular case. [Ruby Creek has] the burden of demonstrating that the 17 circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009) 18 (cleaned up). The Court will consider: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing 19 that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured 20 absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested 21 in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Id. at 434. The first two factors “are the 22 most critical,” and “simply showing some possibility of irreparable injury fails to satisfy the 23 second factor.” Id. at 434-35 (internal quotations and citation omitted). A stay will be denied to 24 movants who do “not meet the applicable irreparable harm threshold, regardless of their showing 25 on the other stay factors.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 2011); see also 26 Winding Creek Solar LLC v. Peevey, No. 13-CV-04934-JD, 2018 WL 1912136, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 27 Apr. 23, 2018). 1 Ruby Creek has not established a threat of irreparable injury, or that money damages 2 || would be inadequate for any injury it might sustain. Ruby Creek’s sole point is that “with a 3 || property sold at less than full value . . . any lien remaining to Ruby Creek” on the proceeds of the 4 || proposed sale “would be measurably less than the one Ruby Creek had before the sale.” Dkt. 5 No. 6 at 9. But as Ruby Creek acknowledged, the bankruptcy court order provides that Ruby 6 || Creek’s lien will “attach to the sale proceeds [with the] same force, effect, validity, and priority” 7 || to which it had attached to the property. Jd. at 8. Consequently, Ruby Creek’s apprehension of 8 injury is difficult to follow, and that vagueness undercuts the possibility of finding irreparable 9 harm. See In re Howrey LLP, No. 14-CV-03062-JD, 2014 WL 3427304, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 10 2014). 11 In addition, a diminution in the value of the lien is ready made for a money damages 12 award, should circumstances ever warrant that. This eliminates any genuine threat of irreparable 5 13 harm to Ruby Creek. See Lydo Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th 14 Cir. 1984); In re Irwin, 338 B.R. 839, 853-54 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (finding no irreparable harm to lien 3 15 || holder from sale of property because “any injury may be remedied by a damage award”). 16 At the hearing on the stay request, the Court pressed Ruby Creek for a good reason to 3 17 reach a different conclusion. None was presented, and so a stay is denied. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: May 25, 2022 20 21

JAMES ATO

22 United Jfates District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28