Republic of Turk. v. Christie's Inc.

ORDER

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:

Before the Court is the Republic of Turkey's eleventh-hour motion to stay enforcement of the Court's Judgment dated September 7, 2021, pending Plaintiff's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Dkt. Nos. 475, 476. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 481. The automatic stay of the Court's Judgment expires October 7, 2021. Because the application was filed at 5:48pm on Friday, October 1, there has been limited time for full briefing and consideration. Nevertheless, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to stay enforcement pending appeal. However, in order to give the Second Circuit time to resolve a stay request in an orderly fashion, the Court GRANTS a stay of enforcement pending resolution of a motion for similar relief by the Court of Appeals.

I. DISCUSSION

To decide whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the Court is guided by the familiar four-factor test: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] 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.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009)

(cleaned up). “The Supreme Court has held that the first two factors-likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm-‘are the most critical.'” Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F.Supp.2d 691, 694 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). Moreover, a “stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 433 (cleaned up). The party seeking a stay bears the “heavy burden of demonstrating that a stay is warranted.” New York v. Trump, 490 F.Supp.3d 736, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (three-judge court) (per curiam). The Court addresses each factor in turn, finding Turkey fails to carry this “heavy burden.”

A. Likelihood of Success on Appeal

The Court concludes that Turkey fails to make the requisite “strong showing” that it is likely to succeed on the merits. The parties agree that for Turkey to show a likelihood of success on appeal, it must establish that there are “serious questions going to the merits of the present dispute and . . . that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in its favor.” In re A2P SMS Antitrust Litig., No. 12-cv-2656 (AJN), 2014 WL 4247744, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2014); see also Dkt. No 481 at 8. Each of Turkey's arguments fail to establish that there are “serious questions” on appeal.

First, Turkey argues that this Court failed to properly apply New York law in determining whether Turkey had met its initial burden to prove that the Idol was excavated post-1906. In its post-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, Turkey agreed that it bore the initial “burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is lawfully entitled to possess the Idol and that Defendants have unlawfully withheld it.” Dkt. No. 468 at 38 (citing Abbott Labs. v. Feinberg, Nos. 18 Civ. 8468, 19 Civ. 600, 2020 WL 7239617, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020)).

Perhaps in an attempt to diminish the weight of its burden, Turkey emphasizes that this is a “threshold, ” “prima facie” showing requiring an “arguable claim” to the Idol. Dkt. No. 479 at 12-13. But an initial burden is still a burden, and one that this Court found Turkey failed to meet after carefully considering the substantial record. That Turkey takes issue with this Court's weighing of the evidence does not present a “serious question” on appeal. See In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers, No. 20 Civ. 6539 (JMF), 2021 WL 1905002, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. May 12, 2021).

Indeed, Turkey's arguments on this score merely ask the Court to reweigh its findings from the bench trial. For example, Turkey argues that its expert testimony establishing that the Idol was found in Turkey is sufficient to make a “threshold showing” that the Idol was removed some time after 1906. Dkt. No. 479 at 13. Based on the evidence at trial, the Court considered and rejected this same argument in its Opinion-the Idol's origination in Turkey sheds no light on the key question of when it was removed from Turkey. See Republic of Turkey v. Christie's, Inc., No. 17-cv-3086 (AJN), 2021 WL 4060357, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021). Turkey also faults the Court for crediting Defendants' evidence that other Kiliya-type figurines were removed from Turkey pre-1906 without generating significant attention among scholars or collectors of antiquities. Such...