SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROSEMARY KILKENNY § Judge Heidi M. Pasichow
EDWARD SARGENT §
Defendant. § Case No.: 2020 CA 004315 B
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
NOW COMES Edward Sargent, Defendant, and files this Motion for Stay of Proceedings, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:
- Defendant requests a stay of proceedings on the consolidated case for a period of ___ days.
- Defendant requests a stay of proceedings because of his illness. Following the recommendation of his doctor, Defendant is unable to work. Defendant is a technical writer. Defendant’s ability to do technical, legal and non-creative work has diminished. His doctor advised him to stop working until he receives further treatment supposed to be provided by a specialist.
- Defendant takes medication that mitigates his overall mental condition and helps his bipolarism stabilize. The technical work that Defendant does and the research and time invested in this case have overpowered the baseline mitigation that his medication provides.
- Defendant does not have the necessary resources to hire legal counsel to represent him during proceedings. He is the only one who can handle his case and is unable to do so at this time.
- “Under both Rules, however, the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he 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.” Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770 (1987).
- The foregoing factors were discussed and expounded by the court in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, 259 F.2d 921 (1958) as follows: “We come, then, to a consideration of whether petitioner has shown sufficient grounds warranting the exercise of the court’s powers to grant the extraordinary relief requested. Essentially, four factors influence our decision: (1) Has the petitioner made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal? Without such a substantial indication of probable success, there would be no justification for the court’s intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review. (2) Has the petitioner shown that without such relief, it will be irreparably injured? The key word in this consideration is irreparable. Mere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough. The possibility that adequate compensatory or other corrective relief will be available at a later date, in the ordinary course of litigation, weighs heavily against a claim of irreparable harm. But injury held insufficient to justify a stay in one case may well be sufficient to justify it in another, where the applicant has demonstrated a higher probability of success on the merits. (3) Would the issuance of a stay substantially harm other parties interested in the proceedings? On this side of the coin, we must determine whether, despite showings of probable success and irreparable injury on the part of petitioner, the issuance of a stay would have a serious adverse effect on other interested persons. Relief saving one claimant from irreparable injury, at the expense of similar harm caused another, might not qualify as the equitable judgment that a stay represents. (4) Where lies the public interest? In litigation involving the administration of regulatory statutes designed to promote the public interest, this factor necessarily becomes crucial. The interests of private litigants must give way to the realization of public purposes. The public interest may, of course, have many faces — favoring at once both the rapid expansion of utilities and the prevention of wasteful and repetitive proceedings at the taxpayers’ or consumers’ expense; both fostering competition and preserving the economic viability of existing public services; both expediting administrative or judicial action and preserving orderly procedure. We must determine, these many facets considered, how the court’s action serves the public best.”
- Defendant is likely to succeed on the merits of this case. Plaintiff has made frivolous crimes that she cannot prove against Defendant. Plaintiff strongly believes that he will succeed on the merits of his defense provided so far as well as all further defenses that he will assert later during the course of these proceedings.
- Defendant will suffer injury if he is not granted a stay of these proceedings. He is currently unable to work on his case following the advice of his doctor. He cannot prepare or respond to pleadings or attend hearings. If a stay of proceedings is not granted, Defendant will not prepare or respond to any pleadings or attend any hearing. He will be prejudiced as he won’t be able to make any assertions or respond to any claims brought against him.
- There will be no harm or prejudice to Plaintiff if this Motion is granted.
- Granting this Motion will serve public interest. It is the role of the court to administer justice and accommodate all those who come to seek it. One of the ways of accommodating litigants who seek justice is issuing a stay of proceedings when a litigant is unable to actively participate, citing compelling reasons. Defendant’s compelling reason is the professional medical advice from his doctor. Failing to grant this Motion will exclude Defendant from proceedings instead of accommodating him as he will not be able to actively file and respond to pleadings, and to attend hearings. That will be contrary to the aim of this court: administration of justice to the public.
REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to GRANT this Motion for Stay of Proceedings and subsequently stay all proceedings in this consolidated case for a period of ___ days.
Dated this ____ day of February, 2022.
Edward D. Sargent
Defendant in pro per
I, Edward D. Sargent, being duly sworn depose and say that I am the Defendant in the above-entitled action, that I have read the foregoing Motion for Stay of Proceedings and know the contents thereof. That the same is true of my own knowledge except as to those matters and things stated upon information and belief, and as to those things, I believe them to be true.
(Sign in the presence of a Notary Public)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this ___ day of February, 2022.
(Printed name of Notary Public)
My Commission Expires: ____________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )