Commission v. Eddy Alexandre and EMI MiniEx

Background

Eddy Alexandre, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an emergency motion asking the court to stay, or pause, the receiver’s distributions while he appealed two earlier orders. One earlier order granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission. The other required Alexandre to turn over additional assets and information to the receiver. The motion sought a stay of those orders pending appeal.

The Court’s Analysis

The court considered four factors used to decide whether to issue a stay pending appeal: whether the applicant is likely to succeed, whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lies.

The court found that Alexandre had not shown a strong likelihood of success. It said he merely stated that he believed his appeals were likely to succeed and did not explain why.

The court also found that Alexandre had not shown any injury, much less irreparable injury. The court noted that it had already approved the receiver’s distribution plan and that distributions would continue even if the Court of Appeals later reversed the summary-judgment or asset-and-information orders. It further stated that the losses Alexandre identified involved money and other property, and that losses compensable through money damages generally do not establish irreparable harm.

For the remaining factors, the court found that a stay would substantially injure EminiFX investors, who had a clear interest in having as much of their money restored as quickly as possible.

Ruling

The court denied the application. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an interlocutory appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees on that interlocutory appeal. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 522 and mail a copy of the order to Alexandre.