Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company
- Garnett
- 1:24-cv-02283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company, Judge Garnett denied Whitehead’s motions to pause the case while he appealed earlier orders.
David Louis Whitehead’s three requests to pause the case were denied. The defendants and the public were identified as interests that could be harmed by delay, and Whitehead was denied permission to appeal this order without paying the filing fees.
What happened
In Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company, David Louis Whitehead asked the court to pause the case while he pursued an appeal of an earlier order. He filed three motions, including one that the court treated as a stay request even though the docket described it as a discovery motion.
The court applied four factors: whether Whitehead was likely to succeed on appeal, whether he would suffer harm without a pause, whether a pause would harm the defendants, and the public interest. The court found that none of these factors supported pausing the case.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied all three motions to stay. She also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees, and directed the clerk to terminate the three motions.
The detailed version
- Whitehead v. The Walt Disney Company · No. 1:24-cv-02283
- Garnett
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
David Louis Whitehead moved on three occasions to stay, or pause, the proceedings while he pursued an interlocutory appeal of the court’s November 19, 2024 order. The defendants opposed the motions. The court also construed Whitehead’s January 2, 2025 filing as another motion to stay because the nature of a motion depends on its substance, even though the docket described that filing as a motion for discovery.
The court noted that the requested appeals and stays concerned matters similar to Whitehead’s earlier requests for injunctive relief and to unseal documents. The court had denied those earlier requests and had certified that appeals from those orders would not be taken in good faith.
Court’s analysis
A stay pending appeal is a pause in the proceedings while an appeal is considered. Courts evaluate four factors: the applicant’s likelihood of success, the possibility of irreparable harm without a stay, potential injury to other parties, and the public interest.
The court found that Whitehead had not shown that any factor favored a stay. It found that his appeals were unlikely to succeed for the same reasons the court had previously denied his requests for injunctive relief and to unseal documents. The court also found that Whitehead had not alleged or demonstrated actual, imminent harm that could not be remedied with money damages; instead, his motions repeated earlier arguments and requests.
As to harm to the defendants and the public interest, the court concluded that a stay would unnecessarily and unfairly delay resolution of the case. In discussing that point, it referred to a prior related proceeding, No. 22-cv-00883 (S.D.N.Y.), in which courts had reportedly described Whitehead as a vexatious litigant and had warned or imposed filing restrictions or other sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett denied Whitehead’s motions to stay, identified as Dkt. Nos. 56, 61, and 62. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate the three motions. The opinion does not state that the underlying case was dismissed or otherwise resolved by this order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.