Hetland v. Beauchesne et al, No. 2:2015mc00299 - Document 28 (D. Utah 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 24 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 07/31/2015. (tls)

Download PDF
Hetland v. Beauchesne et al Doc. 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION MATTHEW HETLAND, RULING & ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:15-mc-00299 v. TRAVIS BEAUCHESNE, an individual, iCLICK PROMOTIONS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, and PLAYA NEGRA, a Cost Rica entity of unknown origins, United States District Court Judge David Nuffer Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead Defendants. This matter was referred to this court by District Court Judge David Nuffer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) (doc. 11). Currently pending is Defendants Travis Beauchesne, iClick Promotions, LLC and Play Negra’s (collectively “Defendants”) “Motion to Stay” as filed on July 29, 2015 (doc. 24). The motion has been fully briefed and submitted for decision. (doc. 27). For the reasons now set forth herein, Defendants request is denied. I. The stay here would effectively afford injunctive relief. First, Defendants’ proposed stay would have the practical effect of preventing a sheriff’s sale set for this afternoon. Defendants have not demonstrated sufficient harm to justify such a result. Thus, the Court elects not to stay operation of its prior order. II. Defendants forfeited their argument in favor of a hearing under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 64E. Defendants did not cite to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 64E in their attempt to seek a hearing before this Court. (See doc. 8). Defendants likewise did not raise this issue in their reply Dockets.Justia.com memorandum in support of that motion. (See doc. 16). Instead, they raise that argument in their reply in support of their emergency motion for a stay. 1 (doc. 26.) Accordingly, Defendants have forfeited this argument by failing to raise it in their initial motion. III. A stay pending a hearing would exalt form over substance. Further, the Court addressed the merits of Defendants’ arguments in its previous order and found their position to be legally untenable. (doc. 18). Practically speaking, the hearing Defendants now seek would do nothing but unnecessarily delay the sale scheduled for this afternoon. The Court did not deny Defendants’ request for a hearing based upon a lack of evidence, but because their legal theory was incorrect. (See id.) Defendants have not explained to this Court’s satisfaction that its prior analysis was in error. Thus, a stay is not warranted. Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ “Motion to Stay” is DENIED. (doc. 24). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 31st day of July, 2015. Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge 1 As well as their objection to the District Court. (doc. 23 at 5). Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.