Recent Hague District Court Cases - Hernandez v Erazo, 2023 WL 2766803) (W.D. Texas, 2023)

 [Mexico][Motion for Stay pending appeal] motion denied]

     In Hernandez v Erazo, 2023 WL 2766803) (W.D. Texas, 2023) the district court denied Respondent Ruth Sarai Erazo’s Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment and Suspend Injunctive Relief Pending Consideration of Respondent’s Post-Judgment Motions and Appeal. The court observed that A district court has inherent authority to manage its docket, including the power to stay proceedings. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, No. A-16-CA-1300-SS, 2017 WL 5649477, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2017) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). The moving party bears a “heavy burden” of demonstrating that a stay is appropriate. Coastal (Bermuda) Ltd. v. E. W. Saybolt & Co., 761 F.2d 192, 203 n. 6 (5th Cir. 1985).

 

    Courts consider four factors in determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he or 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.” Veasy v. Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014). The first two factors of the traditional standard are the most important, id., but “where there is a serious legal question involved and the balance of the equities heavily favors a stay ... the movant only needs to present a substantial case on the merits.” Weingarten Realty Inv’rs v. Miller, 661 F.3d 904, 910 (5th Cir. 2011); see also Ruiz v. Estelle, 666 F.2d 854, 856-57 (5th Cir. 1982). Above all, a stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion” and the propriety of a stay depends on the individualized circumstances of the particular case. Ind. State Police Pension Tr. v. Chrysler LLC, 556 U.S. 960, 961 (2009).

 

    The Court found that Respondent made neither a “strong” nor a “substantial” case on the merits of her appeal. Even assuming that Erazo’s appeal presented a serious legal question, the balance of the equities did not favor a stay in this case. The Supreme Court’s decision in Chafin v. Chafin confirms that Erazo will not be irreparably harmed by the execution of the Court’s return order in this case. 568 U.S. 165, 178 (2013). Indeed, in concluding that the return of a child to his country of habitual residence does not render the underlying controversy moot, Chafin explicitly recognized the harm that an unnecessary stay can cause to the child: “In cases in which a stay would not be granted but for the prospect of mootness, a child would lose precious months when she could have been readjusting to life in her country of habitual residence, even though the appeal had little chance of success. Such routine stays ... would conflict with the Convention’s mandate of prompt return to a child’s country of habitual residence.” Likewise, Ortiz had already been injured by the loss of his child, and a stay premised on Erazo’s unpromising appeal would only further harm his interests. Finally, the relief that the Court awarded was explicitly authorized by the Hague Convention and contemplated by federal law. Saldivar v. Rodela, 879 F. Supp. 2d 610, 616 n.5 (W.D. Tex. 2012); 22 U.S.C. § 9004. Because enforcing the Hague Convention is consonant with international and federal law, the Court concluded that the public interest would be served by M.S.O.’s return to Mexico. See also Chafin, 568 U.S. at 179 (“If losing parents were effectively guaranteed a stay, it seems likely that more would appeal, a scenario that would undermine the goal of prompt return and the best interests of children who should in fact be returned. A mootness holding here might also encourage flight in future Hague Convention cases, as prevailing parents try to flee the jurisdiction to moot the case.”). Because Erazo had not established that the equities weigh “heavily” in favor of a stay, she must make a strong showing that she will succeed on appeal. Veasy, 769 F.3d at 892 Miller, 661 F.3d at 910. Without more, her mere disagreement with the Court’s determinations as to credibility and the weight of the evidence did not constitute a strong showing that she will succeed on appeal.